HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 11-12Meridian City Council Meeting November 12,
2003
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:10 P.M.,
Tuesday, November 12, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless.
Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: Jill Holinka, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Kenny
Bowers, Bill Musser, Doug Strong, Brad Hawkins-Clark, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
__X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary
__X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird
O Robert Corrie
De Weerd: I'd like to call this meeting to order and welcome you all here to the City
Council Meeting. It's our Regular Agenda November 12th
. It is 7:10 and we will start
with roll call.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. I would like to welcome Troops 149 and 306 and soon to be a
new number, but welcome you boys here today and hope you earn your citizenship
badge and look forward to having you join us here at the meeting. Okay. We will move
to Item 2, adoption of the agenda. Are there any changes?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Our Planning and Zoning Director has asked if we would move Item 10, I believe,
up to -- in front of seven. Is that right, Anna? If that's agreeable with the other three
Council people -- okay. Other than that, I would move that we adopt the agenda as
noted.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented,
with the exception of moving 10 before seven. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 2 of 63
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-
8 zones for proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar
Development, LLC – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road
and East Victory Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
020 Request for revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots
and 9 other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC –
northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory
Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-
036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed
Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development –
northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory
Road:
D. Approve Liquor License Application for Corona Village – 21
East Fairview Avenue:
E. Water Main Easement for New Academy High School – Joint
School District No. 2:
F. Approve Agreement for Hookup to City Sewer System Outside
City Limits by Marvin Everett:
G. Water Line Crossing Agreement with Bureau of Reclamation
and Tuscany Development for Messina Village Subdivision:
De Weerd: Item Number 3. Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Powell: Madam President?
Bird: Yes.
Powell: Before Mr. Bird wants to make a motion, the findings for Sageland, when you
approved it, -- they are not ready. I'm sorry that I didn't get that to you before. Those
are not ready.
Bird: Item C?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 3 of 63
Powell: Items A, B and C are not ready. They were supposed to get a revised site plan
that I approved and they have not done that yet.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, I move that we pass the Consent Agenda, with the
exceptions of items A, B, and C, which is Sageland Planned Development. AZ 03-015,
PP 03-020, and CUP 03-036, and approve the rest of the Consent Agenda and for the
President of the Council to sign and the Clerk to the attest on all proper papers.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Would you move those until November 18th
? Is that sufficient?
Nary: We can do that after.
Bird: We can do that afterwards, can't we?
Powell: Madam President, I'm not clear what happens when it comes off the Consent
Agenda. Does it just get put on later or do you need to table it to a date certain?
Because I don't how close, we are to having an approved plan.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg?
Berg: Madam President, Members of the Council, we have always been instructed if
you take something off the agenda, to put it to a date certain, so that it doesn't fall away.
This has been on the agenda and acknowledged on the agenda, so people that might
be in the audience or out in the public that would want to know when the next time is
going to be discussed, it would be good to have it for a date.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: So, can we -- can't we pass the -- what we have already got the motion for and,
then, we can come back and continue these to a date certain? I agree. I think Bill has
always had us go to a date certain. Anna needs to give us a date certain when it --
what's the hold up on it?
De Weerd: The plat.
Powell: There were changes that they were supposed to make to accommodate
landscape islands on the street.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 4 of 63
Bird: That hasn't been done yet?
Powell: No, it has not.
De Weerd: Well, generally, it's all been done in the same that motion. We can make
two separate motions, if you don't want to include the date.
Bird: Let's go ahead and pass on the -- with the exception of those three and, then, we
will come back, because we are going to have to figure out a --
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, with
the exception of removing A, B, and C on AZ 03-015, PP 03-020, and CUP 03-036.
Have the City Council President sign and the Clerk attest. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we take Items A, B, and C and continue them to the Consent
Agenda of November 25, 2003.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items A, B, and C to
November 25th
. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. Planning and Zoning Department – Anna Powell:
1. Update on Comprehensive Plan Adoption by Ada
County:
De Weerd: Okay. Department Reports. Item A. Planning and Zoning. Anna.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, last week in my department report I
talked about some of the questions that Ada County had raised in regard to them
adopting our Comp Plan as being applicable in their area of city impact. One of those
questions was what does, quote, unquote, rural area development entail -- or rural area
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 5 of 63
residential development. Excuse me. As I went through the Comp Plan and compared
it to what is allowed in the county, there was a question as to what to do with RUT
cluster subdivisions. I'm going to give you a little background on what the RUT cluster
subdivisions are, so that you can instruct me on what you want to do with them.
Basically, the idea and in the intent behind these was to provide a mechanism for
development within the area of city impact that didn't create a blockade to future urban
development. Sometimes the five acre lots are very difficult to redevelop, so the idea
was to allow them to do a small portion of lots and, then, save the remainder lot for
redevelopment when urban services were available. Now, tonight in the Pre-Council
you saw -- or you talked about a cluster subdivision, but that one was unusual, because
the remainder lot, instead of just being open space or agricultural, they used it for a
school, so it was actually -- the whole site was developed. Normally, you would have
five one to one and a quarter acre lots and, then, you'd just have a field or a portion of a
field or just an open spaced area. It was created as a means so that a struggling
homeowner could divide off portions of their property, but that it would still facilitate
development at urban densities when the cities came along. It does not allow an
increase in development -- or in density, it's still one unit per five acres, so there is not --
you don't get double the density or anything like that for having the open space, it was
just to preserve it. The Ada County code actually suddenly encourages these over five
acre lots, because you don't have to do a redevelopment plan for the cluster
subdivisions, but you do for the five acre subdivisions -- five acre lot subdivisions. You
have to have quite a bit of frontage to do one of these. They do require 250 feet of
frontage and most of that is preserved -- is required to be preserved, as you see the
standards coming along. Then, the applicant -- the density cannot exceed one unit per
five acres. Their findings -- they do have to make additional findings that -- that the
applicant is using that remainder lot or making it so that it could be used for agriculture
in the future or some sort of use, rather than just a weed patch, basically. Now the
standards -- as you see the minimum lot size is one to one and a quarter acres. You
can have a reduced property size when there is a community sewage disposal system.
Now, I already understand that the Council is not in favor of those, so we don't need to
talk about those tonight. I really just wanted to talk about the cluster subdivisions on
individual well and septic. It's clear that through Resolution 401, that the community
sewage disposal systems are not wanted. The remainder lot -- one of the standards is
that the remainder lot -- that there is a note that it will stay in a dedicated open space
until the property is annexed to a city or until it obtains the zoning ordinance map
amendment to an urban use, basically. They also have to preserve two means of future
access to the remainder lots, so that -- so that that lot can be redeveloped. They can't
just put a 30-foot access and expect that it have a hundred homes on it or something
like that. They do have to have two access points, each of which has to be 125 feet
and that allows for standard size lots, plus the street and, then, they have to have
potable water and adequate sewage facilities. Now, since that code was originally
written, as you heard earlier tonight, the requirements for septic systems did get quite a
bit more onerous, so it was no longer easy to get a septic permit on one to one and a
quarter acres. I was able a talk to Mr. Reno a little bit beforehand and there would be
allowances for having some of that drain field for those individual lots go onto that
remainder lot, because it's -- because in most cases it's just being used for agricultural
purposes. There would be an opportunity there to have an easement for the drain fields
on that property. One of the requirements for the RUT cluster subdivisions is that the
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 6 of 63
houses be double plumbed, so that all the plumbing is there for when the sewer line
goes by, they can go ahead and connect without having to replumb the house or
without a whole lot of additional cost to the homeowner. When those are originally built,
they do have to be double plumbed. That's cluster subdivisions in nutshell. I did ask
Mr. Reno to stay if you had questions about the septic and wells. The questions that I
need answered tonight, so that I can do a letter for your signature to forward on to the
board of county commissioners is do you want to allow these cluster subdivisions on
individual septics and wells. It's unclear right if we just put it in a letter form, then, Ada
County will be understanding what we want and when we are doing a Comprehensive
Plan text amendment, we might to want make it a little more clear. Then, right now we
require a redevelopment plan for anything that goes on in the area of city impact. I
don't know if one -- part of the incentive of doing the cluster subdivision is to leave a
large enough lot that the redevelopment plan isn't as necessary as it would be on a five-
acre plat. That concludes staff's presentation or report.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions? Comments? Feedback?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yes. I think you got it right. I don't think this is one Councilman that don't want
the cluster deals out there and I certainly don't -- and I do want the redevelopment -- the
development plan on the stuff.
Powell: So, you would prefer to see the five-acre lots, rather than the one-acre and,
then, the remainder lots?
Bird: Yes but I don't want to see separate septic and wells.
Powell: But the five-acre lots would be serviced by individual septic and wells.
Bird: Yes. Five acres can, but the others ones, no.
Powell: Okay.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don't know, I think I guess I'm more on the opposite side. I guess I like the
smaller cluster with the larger remainder, is more likely to redevelop into something
else, more in line with the Comprehensive Plan of what we would like to see for long
term growth than those five acre lots. I think once you divide it into five acres pieces
and put a house on it, until that septic fails, nothing is going to change, and it’s not
going to be anything else but five houses for 15 years. I guess I'm -- although I'm not
wanting that type of development, I recognize that that's the intent of the compromise is
to have something else that's not contiguous and can do something. I just think that we
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 7 of 63
are more likely to get something else long term with those one acre parcel types of
clusters with the remainder with a redevelopment plan. I just think that's -- long term it's
going to be a better thing.
De Weerd: I guess I agree with that and in terms -- it would be quite a mess if we had
the five acre parcels and they all started wanting to subdivide individually that we could
really set ourselves up for quite a mess. I guess I would be curious with Mr. Reno in
terms of septic systems with a five acre versus the one-acre. What is more palatable
for Central District Health, to have the cluster one acre -- come ahead and -- to have
the cluster development, so you have all the septic in one place or to have it spread out
over the five acre lots?
Reno: Mike Reno with Central District Health. Madam President, it just depends on
how many lots are going to be developed. Right now, we don't require a nutrient
pathogen study if it's four lots or less, because we didn't -- when we first came up with
that requirement through our board of health, we didn't want to hinder the farmer who
wanted to split off a couple acres for his kid. But -- and Idaho Code designates a
subdivision as five lots or more. If it was a five lot or more and they were going to
cluster those drain fields into one area, the nutrient pathogen study is going to
determine whether that's feasible or not. It's a requirement that the nitrates be within
one milligram per liter background by the time it reaches that property boundary and a
lot of times if you were to do that, proposing just one acre lots, we are seeing that it's
not feasible to keep the -- that nitrate bloom contained within one acre. You definitely
need a little bit larger lot than one acre, probably closer to two acres is what we have
been seeing. I anticipate if these things are clustered in the RUT cluster, like she's
discussing, they will probably be to a central drain field. That -- which would facilitate
an easier connection to city sewer if it were to come by, because you already have them
all going to one location and they could just be diverted over to where ever the
connection for the city sewer is.
De Weerd: So, then, would Central District Health's recommendation, if they got a
cluster, that if they didn't meet the specifications within your requirements, that they
would be bigger in size or fewer in numbers?
Reno: That's correct. The nutrient pathogen study ends up dictating density. It only
shows how many dwellings could be on that parcel that could be supported by that
parcel.
De Weerd: Okay.
Reno: So, we have had developments that they have proposed two-acre lots and they
have been required to have five-acre lots and some that have come in proposing five-
acre lots and, yet, it would have allowed two-acre lots. It just depends on the strata that
-- the type of ground they are going into, the depth of the water table, and the gradient
of the site.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Reno? No? Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 8 of 63
Reno: Thank you.
Powell: Madam President, to follow up on your question, Ada County has a maximum
lot size as well of 1.25, so if it came back that they needed two acres, it would pretty
much kill the project, because they couldn't do two acres. They'd have to use the
remainder lot for a portion of their drain field, which is a possibility. The nutrient levels
that Mr. Reno was referring to, it has to meet that standard at the boundary of the
subdivision, not each individual lot.
De Weerd: So, some of the standards of Central District Health has more of an
influence on the cluster developments and how many and what size.
Powell: Very much so. Ada County has not gone back to rewrite this since Central
District Health has changed their septic requirements. It used to be pretty routine to get
a septic on an acre. Less than an acre was tricky, but the ground water had to be really
high to have to have a larger site before under the old standard, so --
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And we have some very high groundwater in our impact area, even though it is
going down, I believe, every year. That's the reason I would like to stay with the five,
because you never know what's going to happen within that five acres and, you know if
you subdivide the five acres into one-acre lots, it's not going to meet the requirements in
a high water table. I'd just as soon stay at five and, hopefully, we get sewered out and
won't have to worry about this.
Powell: I need a -- I guess I need a motion, because I need to tell Ada county one way
or the other what it is we want them to do.
De Weerd: Council, I have heard two different opinions and I guess two people have
spoke to one of those opinions, so do I have a motion?
Nary: It's up to you.
De Weerd: And if we have a tie, there is no one to break it.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: This probably won't get a second, but we will get it out there. I move that we
instruct Anna to go with the five-acre RUT cluster subdivisions.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 9 of 63
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to have the five-acre RUT cluster
subdivisions. Any discussion? Okay. I guess all those in favor say aye. Those
opposed nay.
MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES
De Weerd: I guess the reason I voted against it is because our groundwater is high in
areas of our city, but it doesn't follow that in all areas. If Central District Health looks at
their requirements, it will dictate what those sizes can be. I guess that's -- I would not
like the mess that we would create with the five acre lots and I do think it will create a
mess in wanting to subdivide. I guess that's the direction I --
Bird: Madam President, I don't disagree with that, but in the same token, we do have
high water table and you're going to have some instances where it don't run. Why not
let the people come back in like Mr. Jewett just did and go through with five -- if we have
a basic five-acre lot. Then, come back and do a planned development or something get
it different, if they have got the water table that will take care of it, I believe.
De Weerd: Well, I hope not everyone does it like that last application we heard.
Nary: Well, hopefully that --
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam President, I mean if -- isn't, really, the issue here, if I understand it, is
whether or not we would be in favor of this cluster with the resubdividing and the
smaller one acre -- one to -- was it 1.25 acre lots with a remainder lot, they can always
do the five acre lots.
Powell: Yes, sir.
Nary: Okay. What Mr. Bird wants to do, they can do that, it's whether or not we would
allow -- whether or not we would be in favor of them doing less than that. I guess the
reason I like the less than is because we get the bigger picture, we get to see what
you're going to do with it, but if you want to do, hopefully, better, then -- then, the last
one we had at pre-Council -- but if you want to do that, you can still do it. You can still
do what you want to do. It's not an either/or. It just allows for something else and at
least the something else is more in line or guidance to what -- we get to see it, we get to
see what the resubdividing is going to be. It has something that's going to have a
relationship to our Comp Plan, so, to me, I guess it isn't an either/or, they always can do
what you're wanting, it's whether or not we would allow them to consider something less
than that. I guess I agree with President de Weerd, the one thing that would concern
me about the five acres is we end up with -- on a 20 acre parcel, four subdivisions, you
know, getting split up. They can always still do that, so I guess that's part of the reason
I was against it, because I'd rather have the option where we can see it and see what
else they want to do, rather than only one size fits all, because it doesn't fit all.
De Weerd: And that's what his motion was, is not to allow the cluster.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 10 of 63
Nary: Yes. If we are at an impasse, I guess we have to just set it over.
De Weerd: Well, you can try a motion. We still can take a motion and see if you
convinced anyone else.
Nary: Well, Madam President, I guess, then, I would move that we basically direct the
Planning Director to advise the county that we would be -- the city would be I guess
agreeable to this cluster subdivision plan, which would allow for resubdivisions with a
plan of remainder lots. For smaller lots, the one to 1.25 acre size lots, for, I guess, 20
acre parcels. Does that cover what you were talking about?
Bird: Twenty acre --
Powell: Twenty-acre minimum?
Nary: Twenty-acre minimum parcels.
De Weerd: Okay. I will second that. I do understand, Anna, that they would be
required to put dry lines in for sewer.
Powell: They are required to double plumb the house. They are not required to put in
dry line sewers by the county. However, Resolution 401 requires the dry line, as I
understand it. Unless waived by the city engineer.
De Weerd: Okay. Can that be part of --
Nary: I would include that. Yes, I thought that was part of what our memo says about --
Powell: It's already -- that portion is already in there. I just needed to know if --
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. It's been moved and seconded, then, to direct the planning
director to state our support of cluster subdivisions as Mr. Nary suggested. Any
discussion?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor of the motion please I say aye. Those opposed?
MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I guess you won't have any resolution on this until we get the
Mayor back.
Powell: Should I -- I guess I'll just ask Ada County to withhold the application for a little
while until we can get this resolved.
De Weerd: Or we have a new Council.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 11 of 63
Bird: Madam President?
Nary: They can fix it.
Bird: They can break a tie.
De Weerd: You lucky guys.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Let's don't hold over on that. I mean we get mad at Ada County when they hold
out on us and we are holding out on them, so -- for the goodness -- and I don't think it's
going to matter one way or the other. I just don't -- I just don't like to see if we have got
an acre and a half, two acre lots, on the extreme if our boundary. Then, we come in
with acre lots and stuff like that, I don't think it's a fair transition that we impact, but I
have no problems changing to a yea on this last motion. I hope Cherie wouldn't either,
so --
De Weerd: So, you're changing your vote to yea?
Bird: Yes. I'm changing my vote to a yea. I don't want to hold up Ada County.
Powell: Thank you.
McCandless: Far be it for me to be the only one to hold out.
De Weerd: Okay. It's unanimous.
Nary: I guess for the record, do you want us to redo the motion or you think that's
adequate for your purposes, Anna?
Powell: Oh, that's adequate for my purposes. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Ordinance No. : Park Impact Fees Ordinance
Amendments:
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna, for that entertainment. Okay. We did move Item Number
10 before seven, so --
Bird: You got six, though.
McCandless: You got six.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 12 of 63
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry.
Bird: The ordinance.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 6. Ordinance Number 03-1059, Park Impact Fee Ordinance
amendments. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only,
Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-
1059, an ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Impact Fees of
the Meridian City Code, providing for revisions, deletions, and additional language to
Definition Section 10-7-3, to the General Provisions Section 10-7-4, to the Development
Impact Fee Standards and Procedures Section 10-7-5, to the Section 10-7-6,
Subsection B, to the Determination of the Development Impact Fees to the Refund of
Impact Fees Paid Section 10-7-7, to section 10-7-8 Exemptions, to Section 10-7-9
Credits, to Section 10-7-10 Suitability of Land Offered for Dedication to Impact Fee
Service Area and Trust Account Section 10-7-11, to Impact Fee Expenditures Section
10-7-12, to Park and Recreation Impact Fees Section 10-7-13, adding a new
subparagraph G and relettering thereafter to the Administrative Cost Section 10-7-14, to
Section 10-7-16, Appeals of the Administrative Decisions, Providing for Revisions and
Additional Language, providing for deletion of language of 10-7-17, Vested Rights,
providing for revisions, deletions and additional language of the 10-7-18, Other Powers
and Rights Not Affected. Providing for severability, conflict, validity, savings clause, and
providing for an effective date.
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1059 by title only. Is
there anyone in the audience who would like to hear it in its entirety? Thank you.
Council?
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move we approve Ordinance Number 03-1059, the Park Impact Fees
Ordinance amendments, with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1059 with
suspension of rules. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
demolish existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling
for caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point
Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction – 500 East Victory Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 13 of 63
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We will visit Item Number 10, the Public Hearing on
CUP 03-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing home and
rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretaker's quarters on Lot 2, Block 2,
of Observation Point Subdivision and open with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Good evening, Madam President, Members of the Council. Item
Number 10, this is a Conditional Use Permit for -- to demolish an existing home and
rebuild it on a single-family residential lot. It's a little bit of an odd Conditional Use
Permit in that typically we don't see Conditional Uses for single-family houses. As you
may recall at a pre-Council meeting a couple of months ago, it was brought to the
Council a question as to how the applicant could proceed with a house when there is
sanitary sewer restriction on the lot. There is a plat note for Observation Point
Subdivision that does restrict development, specifically obtaining a building permit for
this lot that's outlined on the screen, until it can hook up to sanitary sewer. Victory Road
abuts the lot. The entry to Observation Point is just to the east and just to show you a
little bit -- a detail, here is the entire subdivision and, again, we are talking about this
triangular-shaped piece down here. There is a -- this lot is separated from the rest of
the subdivision by a lateral, so the only point of access onto Victory Road is directly
from this lot. There is a landscape buffer, it's 25 feet wide, that's shown here, this
rectangular -- this rectangular shape. The Planning and Zoning Commission did review
and give quite a bit of discussion to the application. There was testimony given in
opposition from the public. We also received in writing a letter from Central District
Health Department, as well as Mr. Reno testified at that hearing in opposition to the
request to get a building permit and retain the septic. There is really two issues, I think,
that this application is coming down to for the Council to discuss and one of them
relates to the sanitary sewer restriction, the other relates to the house size. There is a
CC&R condition on Observation Point Subdivision that has a minimum house size -- I
believe it's 2,100 square feet and the applicant is proposing -- well, the Planning and
Zoning Commission required them to have a minimum house size of 1,400, although
the original application was less than that. While staff recommended denial of the
application, the Planning and Zoning Commission did overturn that. They
recommended approval, with several conditions, which are outlined in the
recommendation. Here is the lot and, specifically, what the Commission is asking for is
shown on page two of their recommendation. They were asking for this house to be
minimum 1,400 square feet. As you can see, it's located at the very southeast corner of
this triangular shaped lot and they are also asking for this -- all of this landscaping along
Victory Road to be completed per the subdivision ordinance. All of the remaining
acreage that is to the west of the house, they put a condition to -- as it was worded in
their motion, to green up the remaining acreage and should you get to that point that
you want some clarification. I think -- I would recommend that we go that way to give
us more enforceability about what does green up really mean. Then, the fourth
condition that the Commission placed on the applicant was to submit a site plan
showing how the proposed garage can be accessed from the west. Again, that's just
assuming that this redevelops in the future, rather than this house taking direct access
onto Victory, they wanted to see the garage entrance be here to the west, so that
internally to this project should it resubdivide, they could -- this house would just be one
lot within several lots and would not have direct access to Victory. Then, the last item is
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 14 of 63
that they are not required to hook up to city services. They could maintain their septic.
However, no building permit would be issued until the sanitary sewer restriction with
Central District Health is resolved. I think those are the key issues.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Sheffield: Elliott Sheffield with RF Custom Homes.
De Weerd: I need to swear you in, Elliott.
Sheffield: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Please raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight,
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Sheffield: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Go ahead.
Sheffield: We have -- after talking with Mike Reno and finding out that we weren't able
to reuse the septic system we had there, I retained Briggs Engineering and they are
currently working on a plan, working with the irrigation district to bore under the lateral.
We do have a -- can I see the subdivision plat again? We do, actually, have a stub on a
manhole just about in this location. It stubs out into our retention area and I think we
can bore under the lateral and bore across there and still tie into the sanitary sewer
system. I think we have resolved that. It was a little more money than we wanted to
spend for this house, but I think we can -- we can take care of that that way. As far as
the garage side, we did, actually, design the garage where you can get out on the side.
We are -- the plans are actually drawn -- I did not turn in the plans, I thought they just
wanted a site plan. We have redrawn it. We have a total of -- I think it's 1,416 square
feet on the plan now. The side entry on the garage, we are dropping the concrete and
currently framing it with a header, so that if it ever does future develop, then, we can
just take the door out, close that end, and put the garage door on the side of it. The
part that sticks out on the end is an almost perfectly square 24-by-24 garage, so we can
access it either way. We did make provisions for that.
De Weerd: Good.
Sheffield: We did intend to green up the rest of the lot, whether it was -- haven't
decided exactly what yet. We were going to kind of put a plan together and decide
what to do there.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Mr. Bird?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 15 of 63
Bird: Elliott, is that -- where you're going to stub into the existing sewer line, is that
natural flow?
Sheffield: It will be.
Bird: Okay.
Sheffield: The way it looks right now, I believe we can. We are within a foot or two of
being able to make it, but I believe we can do a gravity flow.
De Weerd: So, you have worked with all the conditions that the Planning and Zoning
Commission placed on it?
Sheffield: We did.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess so that I'm clear between what you're saying you have done with the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, it still isn't necessarily compliant
with what the staff had originally wanted. Right? It seems like part of the house size
issue.
Sheffield: Well, the house was originally 1,025 square feet.
Nary: Right. Now it's 1,400.
Sheffield: Right.
Nary: It's still smaller than all the other houses required to be in Observation Point.
Sheffield: It is.
Nary: Okay. What's the reason you can't comply with that?
Sheffield: Well, this is, actually, a -- it's designed as a caretaker's quarters for the
property across -- just to the south of Victory Road and just did not want to put that
large of a home for a caretaker's quarters.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: There is an existing dwelling on there currently that you just wanted to
demolish and, then, replace correct?
Sheffield: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 16 of 63
De Weerd: That one. Certainly, this -- you're proposing an upgrade to what currently is
there?
Sheffield: Most definitely.
De Weerd: Okay. Are there any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone
else who would like to testify in favor of this?
Klem: I live in Observation Point.
De Weerd: Please raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Klem: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Klem: My name is Lori Klem and I live at 2833 South Andrus Way. That's Block 3, Lot
3, of Observation Point. The reason we moved there -- main rule is the bottom level of
your home had to be 2,200 square foot. I do know what this home looks like and it's a
shack, it's a scary looking shack. If this is supposed to be Observation Point, then, they
should have to follow the rules that we did, so 2,200 square foot is what they should
have to follow, whether or not -- you know, everybody did. Everybody in the whole
subdivision did. That is my question is why this home is sticking out of Victory Greens,
we walk by it all the time and it is a sad looking shack, whether it be, you know,
somebody's caretaker or what, it is a home. That's the home as you pull into
Observation Point that you see first and it's a sad looking home.
De Weerd: And so you would rather that continue to stay there, rather than to have it
replaced?
Klem: Well, it's been there a long time, you know. The rules are rules. We had to build
our home and it ended up a 3,000 square foot home. The main level had to be 2,200
square foot. If you can prove to us that this is not Observation point, then, that's, fine,
build whatever you want, but if this is on Observation Point property, then, it needs to be
2,200 square feet on the bottom level.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Sackett: My name is Gary Sackett and I'd like to be in favor of it.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Sackett: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 17 of 63
De Weerd: Thank you, Gary.
Sackett: On the map here there is a substantial break where the irrigation runs that
blocks any view of it. Secondly, we proposed this subdivision some years that entire
corner was chopped off, and we didn't plan on having that be part of the subdivision. It
was the courtesy of Observation Point that they went ahead and put that corner in there
by request, not that we wanted that to be in there, so we didn't want it to adhere to the
CC&R's. Nonetheless, it's 2,100 square feet, not 2,200 square feet, but if it doesn't -- if
anyone built a very large home right next to Victory Road there, the viability of that
home being salable in the future. If you build a brand new home on there, no would
one really do something like that when they had the opportunity to build back in a
subdivision where the values would be maintain and the values would be reflective of
the other buildings and homes around the subdivision. That one clear up there just
right next to Victory Road would just not have any potential value sitting that close to the
road, so they would never ever build a home that large that close, so what you would
end up with is keeping the shack that's still sitting there. Thank you.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Well, wouldn't that just mean you need to figure that more now, rather than
piecemealing this thing, like what's being proposed of tearing down the shack and just
rebuilding this house? From what you have said, it's not viable to build that large of
home right there, but doesn't that just mean you simply should figure out what that
triangle is going to be before you just come in and do one house?
Sackett: Well, there were never any plans for that triangle made or proposed for that. I
mean it's just -- it was just there.
Nary: But it is part of this subdivision, it is part of this plat, so it's stuck, so --
Sackett: Right but we felt like it had substantial division with the lateral that runs
through there and the large trees that all go through there, that it wasn't going to
constitute a true part of the subdivision and reflective of the homes in what development
that we wanted to have happen from that road on.
Nary: Well, Madam President -- is it part of this Observation Point plat or not?
Sackett: It's, obviously, on the plat, so it's part of the plat.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Was it included on there, so you wouldn't create on enclave or was there
plans to do something in the future?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 18 of 63
Sackett: I wouldn't be able to speak on what their plans were of that. I know that they
did not make any specific recommendation for the land at the time and, in fact, didn't
even want it to be on there.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I didn't get your address. Do you live in Observation Point?
Sackett: No. I represent the developer.
Bird: Okay. Well, I think I'm the only one on the Council that sat through the
development of that. One of the Council Members coming on in January also was
there. That parcel was all included in everything and if you go back and look at the
Development Agreement, it is stated what it has to be and stuff on the deal, whether --
and as I understand it, as I remember it -- I would have to go back and pull the minutes.
I believe that the developer at that point stated that whatever -- when they developed
that it would be the same rules as what they are doing the rest of the Observation Point
in, so I'd have to go back -- and you need to look at your Development Agreement, too.
I'm sure there is a Development Agreement on that.
Sackett: Well, I know the last meeting at Planning and Zoning it was stated that there
were no plans made one way or another of what they were going to do with land.
Bird: There was not a dye in the wool plan set forth, but when it was redeveloped and
that was taken down, it was going to meet the same requirements as Observation
Point, which you're talking about 1,400 square feet to 2,200 square feet. We
understood that that was the caretaker's place. We allowed it to stay on there, as long
as that's what it was. I think I'm remembering right. I mean I'm pretty sure I'm
remembering. I'll certainly dig back in my papers to find out for sure.
Sackett: Very good. That's all I have. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Brad, when they were in front of Council several months
ago, what was the direction that Council gave them at that point?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I was just checking that. The minutes do reflect that -- actually,
Mr. Watson brought it before the Council and was looking for some direction regarding
the plat notes, since, typically, the -- the staff's interpretation has always been a plat
note can only be changed with a modification to the plat. There was testimony from Mr.
Nichols and Mr. Sheffield was present there, did not oppose to this going to a public
meeting and that was the bulk of the four pages of minutes that we have here, is just
should it or should it not go to a Public Hearing and the direction was set it for a public
meeting.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 19 of 63
De Weerd: Can you also find in your records was there discussion on that piece and
was there anything definitive decided at that time? Is there anything in the
Development Agreement?
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry I do not have that information right here at the desk. Brad and
I were -- Brad Watson and I were just talking about -- just from our own recollection was
that it was an out parcel that the city asked to be incorporated to prevent an enclave.
Bird: That's correct. It was all part of the Development Agreement.
De Weerd: So, we asked them to include it, so we wouldn't create an enclave?
Hawkins-Clark: I don't have the Development Agreement in front of me, but that's our
recollection.
De Weerd: It is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to provide
testimony? Okay. Council?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess before we close the Public Hearing, I guess I'm not sure if this is a
question or just a statement, but if someone else came in here with some other property
in here and said I don't really want to build a 2,200 square foot house, I want to build a
1,400 square foot house. I don't think we'd grant it. If they were required a CU, we'd
say it's not compatible, it's not -- it's part of this subdivision, it's required on the plat, it
says it as plain as day this is how you have to do it and we probably -- at least I wouldn't
think we'd grant that just because. That's all they are asking, they are saying we just
want to replace this house and just want to put another house a little bit bigger on it,
that's a little newer looking, but we don't want to do anything else. I just don't see why.
Their inconvenience isn't really my problem. It is part of this plat. The homeowners that
are here tonight, as well as the homeowners who testified at the Planning and Zoning
Commission said we are stuck with all the same rules of this plat that everybody else is,
why isn't this one? Whether it was required by this Council to add it to the plat to avoid
an enclave, tough. I mean they have known this from the outset that they would have
to deal with that once they chose to redevelop this property and that's what they are
doing, they are choosing to redevelop it, I understand the testimony as saying that we
probably wouldn't build a big house right here and that's probably true. Then figure out
what this triangle piece needs to be and how it's going to tie into the remainder of this
plat and design it and bring that here. To do this in a piecemeal fashion is unfair to all of
the rest of this subdivision and it's inconsistent with this plat. It doesn't make any sense
to me. I read the minutes here from Planning and Zoning and I'm not really sure what
they were thinking, because they really just sort of fashioned it and ignored all the
people's testimony that said it's incompatible and they didn't make any finding as to why
it was compatible, except it would make it to an R-4 standard. That's not -- that doesn't
make a lot of sense to me, but I just can't support this CUP. There is no reason they
have stated of any validity to why it shouldn't be the same as everything else.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 20 of 63
De Weerd: All right. I guess my opinion is that we asked them to not create an enclave
and to include this in their plat, that it -- and they didn't plat it out as part of that
subdivision. That as long as it fits within the R-4 and it's replacing something that's
definitely and eye sore there now -- you know, they didn't ask for it to be part of that
subdivision. They did annex that piece in with the rest of it, but they did not plat it, and
so because they didn't not plat it, you know, I guess -- and we knew what was there, we
can ask for more.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Let me make a statement. I think that -- I don't think the staff or the city made
them bring that piece in. I think that was an agreement with the Cavin’s to get the
Observation Point through. I think somebody out there can nod his yes or no with me.
And so I think we need to go back and look and see what kind of restrictions we put on
this deal and it isn't -- so I would be in favor of continuing this Public Hearing while all of
us pull out the minutes of the original application and find out what is -- maybe Will has
them already.
De Weerd: They look thick, I think it's --
Bird: They look thick enough to do that.
De Weerd: We will give you a week.
Bird: But I think to be fair to the applicant, to be fair to the city, and to be fair to the
existing Observation Point people and to Meridian Greens that we need to take a look
and see what the deal is. I do not recall the city forcing that to be annexed or -- as an
enclave. I do not recall that. I think that was something that was brought in, wasn't
platted, we let them go without a plat in that one deal. We knew it at the time that they
planned on replacing that older building when the time was feasible, so -- but I think to
be fair to everybody, we need to go back and look to see from the original application
and the original motion and stuff of what was passed. What requirements was put on it
and I think that's the only way to be fair and so I would certainly entertain motion to
continue one week, if it's agreeable.
De Weerd: Well, I could entertain that motion. Would you like to make it?
Bird: I would -- I mean I would make a motion like that, but I would have no problem if
the other Council -- the rest of you Council people have no problems with it.
De Weerd: You know, it seems to me like I remember that piece was not sewerable
and --
Bird: Oh, yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 21 of 63
De Weerd: No. It's not without the lift station across street. Why don't we go ahead,
Keith, if you will make a motion to continue this, we will have staff look further into it.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearing CUP 03-047 until November 18, 2003.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing of
CUP 03-047 to November 18, 2003. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: PP 03-026
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in
an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Inc.
– west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: So, we will see you back on the 18th
. Okay. We will move on to Item
Number 7. It's a Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003, PP 03-026, request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for
Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 and we will start with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thank you. Madam President, Members of the Council, the
item was continued -- I believe the only reason there was not a recommendation
prepared. I don't believe you received a staff report on this, so I will go ahead and do
that right now. The property is located right here on the west side of Eagle Road. River
Valley Elementary School is just to the west. Carol Subdivision, some of those, as you
know, were recently annexed to the north. The current subdivision that's shown here in
the purple is seven lots. It was annexed and platted and received a planned
development several years ago. The proposal tonight is for these three lots, the largest
three in the subdivision, to be resubdivided, the ones that have Eagle Road frontage.
They are proposing 15 building lots, as compared to the three that are currently there
today. Here is the aerial and there have been three buildings constructed on the
western portion, but none of these three lots that are abutting Eagle Road have any
building permit activity on them. They remain undeveloped. Here is a copy of the
subdivision plat that is proposed. The access to the property would remain as it was
previously approved, single point off of East River Valley Street and, then, North
Stokesberry Place is the cul-de-sac that extends to the north and that would be the
public street access to serve these new lots. It's a little bit misleading, maybe, to look at
the plat in terms of the number of lots. The dashed line that's running here in -- that's
bisecting all of these lots is an easement line that designates where the ingress-egress
is going to be and that's between these two lines. It's a little over 80 feet wide, that’s to
accommodate the drive aisle and the parking, and here you can see I guess it's a little
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 22 of 63
cleaner slide that shows you where the driving, parking, handicapped, and building
pads are located. They are proposing six buildings that would front on Eagle Road, a
smaller product as compared to the conditional use and planned development that they
have already approved, which were the larger footprints. The total square footage of
office on the site is largely the same. This is not a modification to the Conditional Use
this is strictly a re-subdivision. Obviously, it will involve a pretty different configuration
for the property, but the access points, the elevations of the buildings, the materials to
be used in the buildings, the office square footage is -- all of those factors remain pretty
much the same. There was opposition given at the Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing. Primarily they were opposed to the smaller, quote, unquote, and cracker box
buildings. The key issues that the Commission discussed was the landscape setback
on Eagle Road and whether or not that setback should be in a common lot or in an
easement. They would prefer to keep it as it currently is, which is just an easement.
There is not a separate common lot, but Steve Siddoway in his staff report did bring it
up, because the ordinance does require those landscape lots to be in common lots now
under the new ordinance and so since it's a re-subdivision, he wanted to make that
point. I think that's probably the main clarification that Council and the applicant need to
discuss tonight is whether the easement is sufficient. Staff does support the
arrangement of the easement based on past precedent. I think the only other issue to
point out that is in the recommendation is on Page 6 and it deals with the Idaho
Transportation Department who -- this is Item Number F on Page 6, who did submit a
letter requesting that the applicant do a traffic noise screen, which, frankly, our
department has never heard of. I think this might be a new thing that ITD is asking for.
Mr. Fluke is representing the developer, the same thing, we just don't know what a
noise screen is. Our assumption, obviously, given the context, it's a noise study and
they are asking for things that would typically be asked for as part of a residential
subdivision to help mitigate noise for residences. Usually, you wouldn't see that request
for an office use, but I'll let Mr. Fluke address that, that does need some clarification
tonight. That's all I have.
De Weerd: Any questions? Okay. Applicant? Is the testimony you provide tonight the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Fluke: It is.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Fluke: Darin Fluke, 250 South Beachwood in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fluke: JUB Engineers. Representing the applicant in this matter. We will keep this
brief. It's a fairly straightforward application. We will file this one under the best laid
plans. Those three large lots just haven't sold in the last three or four years that they
have been platted. The developer was able to sell the three to the west and those are
currently developed with buildings that look just like we said they would look when the
subdivision was approved. We have strict design guidelines on those and the buildings,
albeit smaller in this new development, will match them in building materials and quality.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 23 of 63
It will look very cohesive with what's there now. We don't really have any issues with
the staff report. We are agreement with everything. We would ask your consideration
to allow us to have the landscaping that does exist along Eagle Road be in an
easement across the back of these lots, just simply for a setback reason. It doesn't
make much difference to us, really, whether it's in a lot or an easement, but if it
becomes a lot, then, we have a more stringent setback there. You're all probably
familiar with it, having driven by there, that there is a four-foot berm there now with fairly
mature landscaping, they did a nice job of that Eagle Road frontage, and all of that is
going to stay just the way it is now. Those buildings will largely be not visible from
Eagle Road. You will be able to see the tops of them, but if you think about how it is
now, you can't really see the buildings that are developed back here as you come down
Eagle Road. That speaks also to this requirement from ITD. This is the first time I have
seen them come out with this particular letter. I'm sure you have a letter in your packet.
We didn't receive this until just last week and so we have been scrambling around trying
to figure out what they want us to do and have been unsuccessful in getting together
with Dan Kuntz on this. However, from the tenor of the letter it seems clear that they
saw 14 lots and just assumed that we had a residential subdivision going in next to
Eagle Road and so they decided to talk about this noise screen and the limited access.
The access is, of course, already set. ACHD has approved it. River Valley Street does
provide the sole source of access to Eagle Road. It is at the half mile and so it is likely
at some point in the future that that would be signalized, because it is in an urban area,
and the ACHD report reflects that. One clarification on what Brad said. We do not have
any access to River Valley Street, that was prohibited, but we do off Stokesberry here,
here, and here, to provide access to all of these. We simply ask that you just leave out
the requirement for the noise screen. It doesn't seem to provide any real function here.
We have already got buffering from Eagle Road and office uses are much less sensitive
to road noise and residential uses, in any event, and so we feel comfortable with what's
there now. I'll leave it at that and if the Council had questions, I'll take those now.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I am concerned, Mr. Fluke, on the issue of having an easement, rather
than a common lot, because, then, the maintenance of that is against each owner of
those buildings or is it all going to be maintained by a common association?
Fluke: The latter. The maintenance is handled the same way. Either way it's set up in
the agreement between the owners for all the common areas and so whether it's in a lot
or whether it's an easement across their lot, it's still maintained from a common pool by
all the property owners within the development. We would be happy to have that in as
a condition of approval. It's in the CC&Rs now, so --
Nary: Okay. I guess the only other question I had, Mr. Fluke -- I mean I guess I'm -- I
understand what you're saying and I appreciate the fact that you have attempted to -- or
your clients have attempted to market this property, but was it just four -- was if four lots
on that?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 24 of 63
Fluke: Those were three lots.
Nary: Three lots. I guess it just -- I guess for what it's worth, it just concerns me a little
bit that we go from three lots to basically 15 buildings, from three buildings. That seems
like quite the explosion of change from not being able to find three property owners to
now getting 15 of them in there with traffic congestion -- I mean the type things that
were brought up at the Planning and Zoning Commission's concern. I mean there
aren’t more parking spaces that you have got now, 18 different potential uses on that
property, versus six. The variety of traffic, the hours of traffic, the type of traffic with the
school right there in Eagle Road seems a little troubling, but --
Fluke: What we found -- what the client found was that mainly it was the size of the lot
and the attendant size of the building that was the problem. The floor area that we
have in this is largely the same as what we were approved for in the previous
application, it's just we couldn't find any users who needed that large of a building.
Most of the users end up being doctors and dentists and orthodontists and such and
they are looking for buildings more in the neighborhood of 2,500 square feet, which is
what you're seeing with this development here, rather than a multi-story building, which
is what we had approved before. The floor area is basically the same it's just in discrete
buildings, rather than being lumped together in larger buildings.
Nary: You don't think being next to Eagle Road and no traffic light there and getting in
and out wasn't an issue in marketing this property and not really the building size?
Fluke: Well, I wouldn't say that. I don't know what the full range of marketing issues
are, but what was represented to me by my client was that smaller buildings are what
people are looking for -- what his users were looking for. I think, you know, traffic wise a
lot of those kinds of uses like to have the traffic. Access has been a big problem area,
but, as we say, we anticipate that that will signalized at some point in the future.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fluke: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any other testimony on this application? Staff, anything
further? Council?
Nary: Madam President, before we close the Public Hearing, I guess I did have one
comment. I don't know if anybody else here has ever driven down Cole and gone to
any of those offices that are along Cole between Emerald and Fairview that are on the
east side of Cole Road, but that's what this reminds me of. This is intensely -- intense
pool of offices with very limited access and very narrow driveways with lots of different
uses and it is a mishmash of use and it is horrible getting in and out, you have lots of
different people -- I mean I recognize that there is -- I don't know the right answer here.
What was proposed, obviously, isn't very marketable, and they have attempted to do
that. I'm not sure that this is the best alternative is turning this into this mishmash of
little buildings meshed into there in front of the school up against Eagle Road with the
hope that once they have a stop light at some point in the future that it's going to all be
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 25 of 63
better. I have tried to use those -- I have used those facilities along Cole on occasion
and it is horrible and it is impossible to find anything in there, so it doesn't serve the
public and I just -- at least for me I see the public telling us what were we thinking of
approving that, so --
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If I am -- the ones you're thinking of is the ones there by the Boise Swim and
Racquet Club?
Nary: Right.
Bird: Those are -- those are basically three or four complete buildings, they are just cut
up a lot. They are not individual buildings like this. These aren't going to be built out in
one -- in six months or anything else they are going to go out as they go. It's a lot
easier to rent a small -- for a dentist or something like that, a small one, than putting up
in the second floor, northeast corner of a big large one. Plus, the fact is a dentist or a
doctor probably would not mind buying a small little building like that, where they
wouldn't on the other ones. I, too, agree with you, I think that's a lot of buildings in a
small area and we all know that Eagle Road is really slowing with traffic. Hopefully, we
will get a stoplight and signal light there one of these days, but -- I don't know. I
understand why they took out the 60, 70,000 square foot buildings, multi-story, and
going in like this. Square footage wise we are probably not -- as the applicant stated,
we are not giving anymore square footage to speak of, so -- the traffic -- the thing I got,
I have never heard of this noise thing before. I definitely don't know what they want
there.
De Weerd: Brad, as far as the parking requirements, do the parking -- the number of
parking stalls support the buildings? I'm assuming they do.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. They are, I believe, about 70 stalls over parked.
De Weerd: Over parked.
Hawkins-Clark: Based on code.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: But, remember, how many discussions have we had about our antiquated
parking code that isn't reflective of use. I mean that's -- I think that's another problem
here, is we don't know what those uses are going to be. We don't know what kind of
offices we are going to have in this place. I guess I differ a little bit from Council
Member Bird in that expediting another light on Eagle isn't my goal. Having another
stop light on Eagle, although it in the long run may be what happens here, expediting
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 26 of 63
that -- another stoplight isn't an ideal situation to me. The congestion on Eagle Road is
not going to get better, but having a stoplight isn't going to make it better. All this is
going to do is if it really were to build our fairly quickly, to me is expedite having a stop
light there, having more congestion, and, again, we don't know what those offices are
going to be. They are just small little buildings that could be of any type of usage that
fits in this zone, which can be a variety that's longer than my arm. I mean I don't know
whether or not -- again, we don't have a whole lot of idea. I know the floor space is the
same and I understand. I guess, as I said before, the property that's along Cole, the
fact that it's one building with, you know, 14 different office buildings -- different office
spaces in it, doesn't make it easier to find anything, doesn't make it easier to park,
doesn't make it easier to get out. I understand the marketing concerns that the owners
had, but this solution just is horrible.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We need a traffic light there regardless of whether we approve this or not, for the
simple fact is you got a school right there and you got some existing office buildings
anyway and the plans, as I understood, from ITD, was going to be every half mile. I
don't like them any better than anybody else, but I think that's something that we have
to deal with. We can sit here and argue all night over that.
Hawkins-Clark: Madam President, if I could just make one clarification. Mr. Barnes,
when they originally came through with this a couple years ago, was required to
contribute to a future opticom in a signal, so the city, actually, is holding bond money,
surety, for that opticom. Obviously, the decision of when it goes in is ITD's, but I believe
that demonstrates that -- just a point of information, I guess, that we are holding that for
future signal.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. I guess it's the same square footage, it's going to
generate the same amount of traffic, and so it's already been approved, they are just
replatting it. What changes from when it was approved, then, to now? What are we
asking the applicant to do different when they have the same square footage they just
reconfigured it. I -- those are my questions. The issue remains the same. The trips are
going to be the same, most likely. It might be a little bit less with the differences in
offices than with a larger building. I -- you know, if this -- if the market bears this better,
you know, it is an approved use, it fits within the Conditional Use Permit and so if we
didn't approve it, what would it be based on?
Bird: That's right.
De Weerd: The Public Hearing is still open and is there any further testimony before we
close it? Okay.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 27 of 63
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing --
McCandless: Second.
Bird: -- on PP 03-026, Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Incorporated.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item
7. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would make a motion that we approve PP 03-026, the request for a Preliminary
Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry
Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Incorporated. West of North Eagle Road and
north of East Avenue -- or East Fairview Avenue, and to incorporated Planning and
Zoning staff and applicant's testimony, with the exclusion of Planning and Zoning's
recommendations sub Chapter F completely and that's the recommendation of the
Idaho Transportation Department on the noise deal, which we would eliminate. For the
attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-026, with the
exception of deleting Item F, the traffic noise screen on Page 6. Any further discussion?
Okay.
Nary: Madam President, just one question. On the elimination Item F, are we basically
eliminating it because we just don't understand what that is? Is that our reason?
Because we don't think we need it?
Bird: Why would you want to require it? This is the only time -- how many applications
have we had out on Eagle Road and this is the first time I have ever seen this come
through. If you want to know the truth, I don't know what it -- I don't know what they
mean by it. I mean they want to -- if it's warranted, they want this thing, well, who
determines whether it's warranted or not? I don't. I don't know. I can tell you whether
the speedway needs a noise level or not, but I can't tell you, you know, what the
recommendation is out there, so why put it in an application like this that's going to
hinder the owners of the property?
Nary: Because I guess -- Madam President? I'm sorry. Because at some point
someone has to be first and at some point we have to understand what they are asking
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 28 of 63
and all they are saying is to follow these recommendations and I guess I hesitate in
simply removing some other agency's recommendations mainly because we don't
understand it. I mean I'd rather continue it, so we know what it is, but just to eliminate it
because they have never asked for it before and we don't understand it, doesn't seem
to make good sense from our position. We don't want people to eliminate our
recommendations just because they don't understand it, so why would we do that to
another agency for that reason.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Okay, Councilman Nary, what -- it says if the results of the traffic noise screen so
warrant, then, the applicant shall perform a traffic noise impact analysis. Who is going
to determine whether it warrants it or not? It don't say -- it don't say up here. It just
says for 20 years future build out. Use the existing highway centerline for the 20-year
future build out 20-year future build out on Eagle Road? What are we going to have? I
don't know. That's -- and this is -- you know, like I said, this is the first time that I have
ever seen this in here. I don't -- I guess, Bill, if I knew -- if I knew what they wanted and
meant, I would have no problem leaving it in.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: I guess I would agree with Councilman Nary. Instead of sitting up here and
trying to guess what it means, maybe we can instruct staff to contact ITD and ask what
that condition is for, because I would agree with Mr. Nary that I would not appreciate
another agency taking one of our conditions and deleting it without asking what the
pertinence of having it on there is.
Nary: Madam President? I mean just one more point. I mean we put on dozens of
applications in North Meridian to comply with the North Meridian Plan, whatever it is,
whatever we pass it. We didn't necessarily define it specifically. Here they have
actually defined it. I mean they cited a manual, the cited a code section, there is
something out there that relates to what they are talking about. I mean I guess I just
hate to eliminate something just because we don't get it. I mean there is some way to
figure out what that is. If we don't like it after we understand what it is, then, I think
that's a different issue, but to just eliminate it because we don't understand what they
are talking about doesn't seem very --
Bird: Then, we need to continue this. We should have not closed it and taken the
motion. We need to continue it if we are going to have staff go back and find out what it
means, because I don't know what it means.
Nary: Well, you just did that. I didn't like it, so --
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 29 of 63
Bird: You might -- you guys might understand, but I don't understand what it means,
what they want, and I know noise levels and there is --
De Weerd: Okay. Well, we don't have a motion, because it did not go further.
Bird: You got a second.
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry.
Bird: We got a second, so let's vote on it.
De Weerd: Okay. We do have a motion on the floor and are you ready for the
question?
Bird: I'm ready for it or I can pull it. I don't care. Whatever you guys want to go back
and do. I don't like pulling somebody else's thing, but I'd like to understand what I'm
pulling.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, if you're ready for the question, I can ask it or you can withdraw
your motion.
Bird: Ask for the question.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, naye; de Weerd, naye; Bird, aye.
MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES
Bird: I knew it was going to happen again.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, this motion didn't go anywhere and so we can entertain a new
motion or ask that the Public Hearing be opened again and instruct staff to find out
more information.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move to reopen the Public Hearing, so that we -- for the limited purpose
of finding out further information from the staff as to what this condition by ITD is and
what impact that may have on the developer. As well as giving the developer the
opportunity to respond to what that impact, they believe to be, but for that purpose only.
Bird: And I would second that and that's the only testimony we will take.
Nary: Right.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 30 of 63
De Weerd: For discussion purposes, I guess I would like to have one thing further
explained. If the easement is made into a lot what impact that would have on those
buildings for setbacks. I would like to know that as well. Would the --
Nary: I have no objection to having just that, again, limited testimony, in addition to the
ITD --
De Weerd: Second?
Bird: That's fine me.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved to open the Public Hearing for specific items of
discussion on the ITD requirement of the traffic noise screen, as well as the easement
or lot implications on setbacks. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: So, we can direct staff to bring those back. Does the applicant have any
further comments? Okay.
Fluke: Madam President, Members of the Council, Darin Fluke again, JUB Engineers.
I did not mean to convey to the Council that we didn't know what this requirement is.
We do and we don't agree with it in this situation, because we don't believe that ITD did
their homework. What a noise screen is is to go out and study the noise levels on the
road currently to project them out 20 years based on anticipated trips on the road and if
the noise levels are such that -- you know, if -- excuse me. If they hit a particular noise
level, decibels, then, they make us go back and study what we need to do to mitigate
that noise. Whether it be a different sort of building construction or whether it be sort of
screening against the road, which, typically, would take the form of a berm and
landscaping, which is what we have now. I mean we could put a sound wall there, but
we have existing landscaping. It might be that they wanted us to change the
construction of the buildings to attenuate that noise, but it's unlikely, given that it's an
office use, and those are typically built to a higher standard than residential is typically
built to anyway. This is something we run into at the City of Boise within their -- within
the noise contours for the airport. If you're within a particular noise contour, you have to
have a different kind of construction. Certain uses are limited. What I think happened
here was ITD simply saw 14 lots, they got under the gun and needed to get a
transmittal out to you, because our hearing was held the very first part of October, you
didn't receive this transmittal until September 29th
. It was not signed by Dan Kuntz it
was signed by somebody else for Dan Kuntz, and I think they simply saw 14 lots on
Eagle Road, no questions, do a noise -- or a noise screen and get back to us. You
know, case closed.
De Weerd: So, it would be advantageous for you for us to continue this, so we can get
some clarity from ITD on that requirement correct?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 31 of 63
Fluke: Well, that's less advantageous than just leaving it out, putting in on. I mean I
know what it is and I think that when we come back we will see that. If we must, we
must, but we have been tabled once already just because a recommendation didn't get
done, so, you know, I would hope that we could keep it moving along. If the level of
discomfort is that great with it, then, yeah, my preference is to have it tabled over
having -- just leaving it in there, because you don't know what it is, so --
De Weerd: Well -- and we are just taking your word for it that they just put it in there,
because they were under the gun and they really didn't mean it. We would like to know
if they meant it.
Fluke: Okay.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Are we looking for a date to continue?
Bird: We need to have a new motion. We just opened up the --
Nary: Right. Because it appears that if we were to continue this matter to the 18th
, that
would, really, only give staff until tomorrow to answer those questions. That doesn't
seem very reasonable. It seems like the 25th
.
Bird: Yes.
Nary: So, I guess with that I would make a motion to continue Items 7, PP 03-026, the
request for Preliminary Plat approval for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 for the limited
purpose of answering the questions in regards to Item F on the recommendations,
which would be traffic noise screen recommendation from the Idaho Transportation
Department. For more definition of what that means and what the impact that may be
on the applicant, as well as the question to be answered in regards to the difference
between an easement and a common lot for the buffer area. What that may be in
regards to -- what that may impact in regards to setbacks for the applicant and continue
the matter for those purposes to the November 25, 2003, meeting.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing PP
03-026 until November 25th
, to hear further testimony on the traffic noise screen
condition, as well as the easement or a lot. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: VAR 03-018 Request for a Variance for a one-year
Time Extension for recording of the Final Plat for Olsen Bush
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 32 of 63
Subdivision No. 2 by R2 Development, Inc. – west of North Eagle Road
and north of East Franklin Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8, Public Hearing on VAR 03-018, request for a Variance for a
one year Time Extension for recording of the Final Plat for Olsen Bush Subdivision No.
2. We will open the Public Hearing with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. This
application is for a one-time extension for a recording of the Final Plat. The Council is
no stranger to this type of application. You have seen numerous similar applications
over the past couple of years. The property in question is shown here adjacent to
Union Pacific Railroad, on the west side of Eagle Road, Olson Bush Subdivision Phase
1, as you can see, has already been platted here to the -- to the east. This aerial does
reflect some of the surrounding uses. It is an industrial use area. The majority of the
property in the area is either zoned industrial or hasn't been annexed. Here is the Final
Plat that was approved that has not been recorded that is in question. You should have
received a staff report written by myself that was received November 6th
and I think just
suffice it to say that staff cannot technically make the required findings for a variance for
a time extension in this case. We did recommend denial. Also, as you will have read in
the staff report, the Planning and Zone Commission did hear an appeal last month on
this matter. Originally, the applicant requested that the Council -- they submitted a letter
that the zoning administrator received requesting a time extension that was denied.
The decision was appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, who, then,
overturned it, basically, resulting in the ability for them to continue on to submit a
Variance application. That's what you have before you tonight.
De Weerd: Interesting process. Okay. Any questions for staff?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, what -- we got your note here in front, but what, in particular, is the reason
you don't want to give your extension on this? Their reasoning to me is very legitimate.
Hawkins-Clark: Madam President, Councilman Bird, with these Variances, the
ordinance requires us to make -- make findings in the affirmative. The sole reason
stated was economic conditions. Of course, I think an unstated reason, which I think
we are all in agreement with, why does the city -- what's the benefit to the city to deny
this and make them start over again. Certainly, there probably is not much of a benefit.
I think the reason that we have this in the code is after a certain amount of time,
conditions around projects change, roads are improved, new houses go in, landscaping
changes, water -- groundwater levels can change with, you know, more impervious
area. If they were following the ordinance, this phase would have been constructed,
you know, over two years ago and that's what the neighbors -- when they -- if anyone
came to a public hearing, that was what they would have anticipated. There was a
mailing, certainly, sent to everyone within 300 feet of this project. If they were in
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 33 of 63
opposition to this being extended, they should have received it. It was already -- it was
also posted but we don't see that there is a hardship that's unique to this property.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Is
the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Miller: Yes, it is. My name is Brad Miller with Ronald W. Van Auker, Incorporated,
representing R2 Development. Our business address is 3084 East Lanark in Meridian.
Since Councilman Bird's memory seems to be very keen tonight, I must admit that a
year ago when I appeared before you, I told you that we need an extension, we were
going to move ahead with this right away. Well, we did move ahead with it, we covered
the Snyder Lateral and did a few other things and, then, the economic condition didn't
seem to -- or economic situation didn't seem to be improving much, so we kind of
waited, waited, waited. Well, at the end of this summer we felt like there was some light
shinning through the dark economic clouds and so we started cutting the road --
finished cutting the road and got to the point of needing a pre-con to do the utility
improvements and we were informed that our approval had expired. We were under
the assumption that if we had broken ground, that we could continue on, but that is not
the case. I'm here to ask you to grant us another extension. I believe I asked until June
of next year. We are in the process of doing the improvements right now. The sewer is
in. It's been in for a while. The road is cut. We need to have a pre-con, so we can put
the other utilities in. The pipe is on site right now to cover the Evans Drain. I have
three tenants who are ready to go in there. I have one signed lease on my desk right
now, which we have not signed, with a national tenant and I don't dare sign it until I
know that we can fulfill our obligations under that lease. I wish that we would have built
it last year. Our timing, actually, would have been good, but -- but we couldn't warrant
it, given the economic conditions. I'd ask that you, please, grant us an extension to
June, so we can move ahead and get this built out. If there are any questions, I would
be more than happy to answer them.
De Weerd: Any questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Miller, did you say that you thought because you guys had started, you
thought you didn't have to get an extension on the plat?
Miller: It was our assumption, which was a faulty assumption -- with Building Permits, if
you break ground, then, your permit continues on. We had thought that the same thing
was true with the Final Plat, but we were informed otherwise.
Nary: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 34 of 63
De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you.
Miller: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Okay.
Council?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we close Public Hearing VAR 03-018.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on VAR
03-018. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the VAR 03-018, the request for a variance for a one year
time extension for recording of the Final Plat for Olsen Bush Subdivision No. 2 by R2
Development, Incorporated, west of North Eagle Road and north of East Franklin Road,
and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers.
De Weerd: Okay. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? I
seconded it.
Nary: Oh, did you second it?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Okay. Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess my discussion is when does no ever mean no? I mean we -- this is the
third time extension and I really do respect Mr. Miller, he's been here plenty of times. I
just find it hard to believe that they didn't understand that a plat is different than Building
Permit. I mean these are very knowledgeable people that do this all the time. We have
to make specific findings. We have stretched the boundaries of doing that with block
lengths, with parking spaces, with these time extensions, but we have occasionally said
no and generally we have said no when they haven't requested it within the time period,
which they didn't. We have said no when they have requested more than one, which
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 35 of 63
this is their third. I recognize that the economy is tough, but we have to make all of
these findings to be legally compliant and I know no one is hear to complain about it.
The ordinance says specifically we have to make findings on every one of these things
and I cannot see that there are special circumstances affecting this property that strict
application of this title would be impractical or unreasonable. It is as Mr. Hawkins-Clark
stated, the special circumstances of the economy is tough. It's tough for everybody.
That's not particular to this property. There is no strict compliance in regards to
topography, nature of the condition of the adjacent development, other physical
conditions that would make it unreasonable. There is absolutely nothing. This is a flat
piece of property. They already started doing it they just didn't do it quickly, because
economy is tough. It's tough for everybody. I mean we can't -- at least I can't make
these findings. I mean we wink wink at these a lot and push the boundaries of what we
can even look ourselves in the face about on making these Variances, but we just
cannot do that here, at least to me. This is the third request, it is outside the year, it just
doesn't fit any reason we have granted it to other people, even though Mr. Hawkins-
Clark has stated we have granted these extensions and we haven't been very strict
about it, but we have said no and I guess for me I'm going to say no.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: While we are on discussion. If we -- if this is turned down, Brad, they have to
redo -- what are we looking at, three, four months getting it back through, plus, you
know, putting some more money in our coffers. We like that, but --
Nary: But that's not the reasons we would do that.
Bird: No. I know that.
Hawkins-Clark: It would involve resubmitting a final plat application, which, typically,
from the date that we receive a complete application, it's three weeks to a City Council
Meeting.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess my question would be was that time frame discussed with
the applicant when they came and started this process? How long has this process
been going on?
Hawkins-Clark: I guess it was -- Mr. Miller might be able to remember it, but I think it
was September. Early September.
De Weerd: So, we are already two months into this, where if he had -- if the applicant
had been told, rather than appealing the decision, it would easier going through and
requesting a Final Plat -- you know, I understand Mr. Nary's arguments and, you know, I
don't know if this the time to draw the line in the sand. Most of these have been for
residential and things can change on the residential, but we have a couple of tenants
that are looking to begin building. I don't see where the negative to the city is. I see
there is definite benefit to the city by extending it. Those are the things that we have
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 36 of 63
always discussed as part of these time extensions. I don't see what we gain by drawing
that line in the sand now and asking this applicant to proceed one more month, when
we have already asked them, too, to do one month that would have taken to ask him to
just resubmit a Final Plat. I -- that's why I would support this.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would agree and, also, the thing is these people want -- are ready to lease,
probably want to get into the thing. I suppose we can make it -- delay it and they can
move lose the deal and one of our other cities get it, so that's -- I'm supportive, because
I understand and I know that Mr. Miller and Ron Van Auker has done a lot of
development, they know the year time, we have -- this will be the third time we have
extended it. That area out there has been pretty tough to develop. It hasn't been a
Silverstone or something like that, but -- for them to get the thing in, but it's definitely an
improvement to the city and I want to see the business come to Meridian, not to
somewhere else. That's why I'm in favor of letting them get started on it.
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I am going to support it, but I just hope it doesn't create a precedent. We
have a lot of these. It doesn't make any sense to me that it has to take so long to get
started. That was my objection but I will support it for the reasons that Keith just stated.
De Weerd: I guess one thing to -- thank you, Cherie. We need to ask staff is to --
again, this is one Variance that we get a lot of requests on and we need to take a look
at our variances and see what is practical, you know, for a time limitation if it -- and
maybe draw that line in the sand to see what's practical residential versus commercial.
As we look to be -- I guess a city that is more attractive to attract business here, this
needs to be one of those considerations in looking at our process and see what's
reasonable. Are you ready for the question?
Nary: No one's made a motion.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Are we ready for a motion?
Bird: We made a motion.
De Weerd: We did, too.
Bird: I made a motion she seconded it.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 37 of 63
Nary: Oh. You're right. I'm sorry.
Bird: That's why we were having this discussion.
Nary: You're right. You're right. I'm sorry. Madam President, I just -- one last thing, I
guess, in the staff direction to do this. My recollection is that we have done this on
residential subdivisions that have made the request within the year and have had other
impediments that we basically found in number one of special circumstances, because
other agencies have prevented them from getting the plat completed. They haven't had
ACHD approval. They found high water table. They found other circumstances and
here, if -- the precedent that we are setting is that the special circumstances are a
personal hardship of the applicant. That isn't something we have granted before. The
next applicant comes up here, that maybe isn't quite so, upstanding as Mr. Miller, we
are going to have to tell them the same thing, that just because they have a hard time,
we are going to give to them. We don't have a person who I think -- and agree with
you, Mr. Miller and Mr. Van Auker are very reputable developers, they know what they
are doing, they do a good job, but we are stuck with that. With the unreputable
developer, who gets up here, who just putts around and waits to the last minute and we
say -- and they say, well, it's tough on us and the economy is tough and we are stuck
with it.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: In answer to Mr. Nary, I can guarantee you that we don't -- maybe we see two of
these variance extensions a year. This isn't the first one. I have seen them come in
that' it's been two and three months behind, because they forgot. They haven't all been
residential and I can't see a one that we haven't -- that we haven't passed. This is the
first one that I know of that the staff hasn't recommended that we do pass. This isn't a
first, by a long shot, that I can recall, and we don't get a lot of them. Question.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. The motion on the table is to approve the Variance for
03-018 and to extend it to June 2004.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Is it June 20th
? What was the specific date?
Bird: June 1, 2004.
De Weerd: June 1st
. Okay. Mr. Berg, call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, naye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: Okay. Three ayes. One naye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 38 of 63
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
branch bank facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O zone for Idaho Central
Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union – east of South Locust Grove
Road and south of East Overland Road:
De Weerd: Item Number 9, Public Hearing CUP 03-046, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a branch bank facility with a drive-thru lane in an L-O zone for Idaho Central
Credit Union. We will open the Public Hearing with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. This Conditional Use Permit is for Idaho Central Credit
Union. It's within the Resolution Subdivision. The reason is for -- it's a drive-thru facility
and our ordinance does require drive-thru facilities. The lot is shown here on the south
side. It's in between Celebration Avenue and Millennium Way. Millennium, as you
know, is the collector that serves the Mountain View High School. This would be the
first building on this lot, the entire lot being owned by the -- by the applicant. Here is a
site plan that was submitted with a conditional use. The primary entrance to the project
would be off Celebration and the entry for the drive-thru, which they do have four aisles,
would be on the north side of the building. One way circulation around the building on
the west side and it would return onto East Gala Street, which is internal to Resolution
through this two way entry-exit driveway. They are meeting the minimum standards in
terms of building height and parking ratio and landscaping. The Planning and Zoning
Commission did recommend approval. They added two conditions, which did not make
it into the recommendation that's in front of you, so I would just ask that any motion
tonight include the requirement to provide cross-access. What they have shown on
their plan is a raised curb here along this entire west boundary and since this will clearly
be redeveloped at some point in the future in order to provide cross-access between
the parking, the Commission asked for a single point to be open and be shared there.
Then, the second condition that would need to be added is that this entry-exit driveway
also provides cross-access for this, so there is just one access point off of East Gala
and they would continue in and, then, enter this western portion of the property through
that shared access. I think all the other conditions are pretty standard and other than
that, staff stands for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any question?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, you said there were the two conditions that didn't get into the Planning and
Zoning that the Planning and Zoning had in their conditions?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Bird: That was in the minutes of their --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 39 of 63
Bird: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: The elevation of the building, the east, west, north, and south is shown
there. The four sided construction. They are showing the -- the Overland Road
elevation is the third one down from the top.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Is the testimony you
provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Christensen: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Christensen: My name is Steve Christensen with Lombard Conrad Architects. I'm at
1221 Shoreline Lane, Boise, Idaho. The staff has just done a good job presenting our
project to you tonight, we have reviewed the special conditions that were noted to
provide the cross easement access to the adjoining property with our client Idaho
Central Credit Union, and they are in agreement with those conditions of approval.
Something I want to note here. We have gone ahead and proceeded with further
refinement of the building and the actual footprint has grown about 8,200 square feet.
The current application indicates about 6,900 square feet. Based on further review of
the client's needs, the program requirements have grown and so with that the building
elevation has changed also, so I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The elevations have just -- have they just been enlarged? I mean they haven't
changed as far as the footprint.
Christensen: Actually, the character of the building has changed somewhat. We are still
considering the hip roof -- upper clear story windows up high will no longer be there,
just the scale of the building for that particular branch is getting a little bit out of hand, so
it's coming back down.
Bird: It's going to be like the existing -- a couple of the existing ones that they have just
built recently.
Christensen: Yes. We were the architects on the previous ones, so --
Bird: Thank you.
Christensen: The previous ones had hipped roofs throughout. This one will have a
combination of hip roof and a flat roof on it, so --
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 40 of 63
Bird: With 1,100 more square feet?
Christensen: Plus or minus. Somewhere in there, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Christensen: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Okay. Staff, any
further questions or comments?
Hawkins-Clark: If I could just confirm that the 1,100 square foot expansion is going
north, south, and not east and west.
Christensen: Actually, it's a combination of both. In reviewing the -- in reviewing the
site plan, we do have a setback requirement off Celebration and we are maintaining
that setback requirement with the building foot print expansion, so --
De Weerd: So, have you submitted a revised plat to staff?
Christensen: A revised site plan?
De Weerd: A site plan.
Christensen: No, not yet.
De Weerd: Okay.
Christensen: But we can in the immediate future. We are just wrapping the building
footprint up and just getting everything ready where it needs to be based on the revised
program, so --
De Weerd: But you will meet all setbacks?
Christensen: Yes. Yes. No problem. Also I note that with increased building footprint,
we are still maintaining the required parking for that bank, so -- or credit union, should
say, so --
De Weerd: So, you had additional parking lots --
Christensen: That's correct.
De Weerd: And that's with the last square footage.
Christensen: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, anything further?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 41 of 63
Bird: I have nothing.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain closing this Public Hearing.
Nary: Madam President, before we do that, don't we need a new site plan, so if we
close the Public Hearing, wouldn't we not be able to accept that.
De Weerd: Do we need a new site plan?
Hawkins-Clark: Since they own the property -- the entire lot, I'm less concerned about
it. They have a couple hundred feet to the west that they can expand that they own. I
would be more concerned if it was a restricted lot. At the certificate of zoning
compliance, you know, we still have the ordinances that they have to comply with. The
main reason for this conditional use is to address the circulation pattern and it sounds
like the circulation pattern is not going to change, so I'm comfortable with it.
De Weerd: Okay. Is Council comfortable with that?
Bird: Oh, I am.
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion.
Nary: I'd move the close the Public Hearing.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item
Number 9. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move to approve CUP 03-046, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
branch bank facility with a drive-thru lane in an L-O zone for the Idaho Central Credit
Union by Idaho Central Credit Union. East of South Locust Grove Road and south of
East Overland Road, pursuant to all staff comments, as well as comments tonight for
the conditions that were omitted and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 42 of 63
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-046 with all staff
comments and testimony. Mr. Clerk.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 03-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 17.5
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision
by Tuscany Development, Inc. – north of East Victory Road and east of
South Meridian Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52
building lots and 8 other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. –
north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. We will go ahead and open -- if Council doesn't object, I will open
both Item 11 and 12, Public Hearing AZ 03-024, request for annexation and zoning of
17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision. The
Public Hearing for PP 03-028, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots
and eight other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Glacier Springs
Subdivision and we will open with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. On Item Number 11, the annexation and zoning, they are
requesting the full 19 and a half acres be annexed to an R-8 zone. The density that
they are proposing in their plat in Item Number 12 ends up to be a gross density of just
under three, so they, actually, meet the R-4 density. They are asking for the R-8 in
order to accommodate some reduced lot frontages, but the overall density does meet
the R-4, so I just wanted to clarify that. The Planning and Zoning Commission did
recommend approval with the Development Agreement and the Development
Agreement had particularly one item that was sort of instigating it and -- there we go.
That was on page two of the recommendation, noting that the minimum home square
footages would be restricted to 1,500 square feet for the single level home and 1,800
square feet for a two level home. Both of those excluding the garage. Those -- that
kind of condition could not be placed on a plat. Since there is, no planned development
that was the only place that kind of condition could be put was the Development
Agreement. Other than that, I think it was a standard annexation request to the R-8.
As you can see, the abutting subdivisions, both Observation Point and Meridian
Greens, they do have the R-4 zone. The existing county sub has not been annexed.
Those are average five-acre lots. On the next item, No. 12, the plat and -- the plat just -
- you probably figured it out, but it's oriented east west. North is, actually, to the left on
the screen. They have one point of access off of Victory Road. It's located about in the
center of their frontage. The road, then, comes in, turns to the east, and, then,
proceeds mainly north. They have two cul-de-sacs off of that street. The connection to
Observation Point is made here about a quarter of the way south from their north
property line. They are also providing a stub street to the east into one of the existing
lots in Kachina Estates Subdivision is the name of that county subdivision. A couple of
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 43 of 63
the items to point out. They did submit a revised Preliminary Plat that's dated
November 3rd
and was received November 4th
by the clerk. That revision
accommodated the Planning and Zoning Commission requirement for this stub street to
Kachina Estates at this point. They also were asked by the highway district to shift their
entrance to the east to meet offset policies for the district. The Comprehensive Plan
does call for a multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and they are proposing to
construct that and that would be placed within an easement for the public. As you
probably well know, there is the -- at this point it does not extend on either side. Any
resubdivision of Kachina Estates, it would be able to continue to the south and, then,
ultimately, hook up with Tuscany Lakes. There is, I believe, a 50-foot wide easement
that is through Meridian Greens on those lots. The parks department did submit a
response to the transmittal simply saying that they were aware that this pathway was
being proposed. I don't believe that they have done any ground truthing, walking the
area to determine the extension, but they did support it. There was not a revised
landscape plan submitted. What I'm showing to you on the screen is the original
landscape plan and this open space lot that is shown here on the west right at the
entrance has now just become three buildable lots, so we do need to get clarification
from the applicant tonight as to where this open space is being shifted to. If they need
to meet the five percent minimum open space. As you can see, they are proposing to
do street trees throughout the project. That was another item that was -- that we'd like
to get -- staff would like to get clarification on tonight was -- in order to do these,
typically we see a detached sidewalk, so that the street trees can be placed within the
right of way. The sidewalk -- or, I'm sorry, the street profile that they submitted shows
attached sidewalks, so just clarification on whether these trees are going to be put on
the individual homeowner lots. If so, when in the process they would be planted. The
sewer serving this subdivision comes down Trinidad Drive and extends here through
this common lot right off of Victory Road. They are providing a little wider landscape
buffer lot onto East Victory and counting some of that as their five percent open space.
They only are required to do 25 feet there, but they have broadened that out to over 40.
I guess at this point that's all staff has.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Is the testimony you provide
tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Schultz: Yes.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Schultz: Good evening. Matt Schultz. I'm with the Westpark Company, representing
Tuscany Development. Our address is 660 East Franklin here in Meridian. I want to
thank staff for giving a fairly thorough staff report covering all the main items and I hope
to maybe provide a little bit of clarification of some of those questions that he had.
Maybe before I do -- before I do so, I'd like to step back and say that we did have a
neighborhood meeting before we went to the Planning Commission. There was one
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 44 of 63
Observation Point director there, as well as the five-acre homeowners and I was really
surprised that the five-acre people weren't against us they were, actually, for us. Which
is probably the first time it's ever happened for me not to be opposed by, you know, the
big lot owners. They were quite happy to see us clean up some irrigation issues, the
weeds, and just have a nice subdivision there on what I see as kind of -- kind of an in-fill
development in terms of the shape and the size and the constraints of the site. The
reason we came in with an R-8 was like Mr. Hawkins-Clark said, we just wanted a little
bit of latitude on our front yard dimensions, which an R-4 is 80. We are asking for a 76-
foot minimum. All of our lots are over 8,000 square feet, which is an R-4 standard. In
fact, our average is over 10,000, if you look at the overall average. We -- there was
some discussion in the -- a very heated discussion, actually -- it started out very heated
about housing size. It was proposed that maybe we would get this thing approved,
zoned, and, then, sell the property and somebody else would come in with a real dense
R-8 and exploit the 1,100 square foot minimum house size and the 65 foot minimum lot
width and that was never our intent. Staff recommended we do a Development
Agreement to lock some things in, which we wholeheartedly agree with and that's why
we did propose to -- we'd like to stick with the R-8 to give us a little -- the dimensional
flexibility. In the Development Agreement, we'd like to specifically say a 76-foot wide
minimum frontage, 8,000 square foot minimum lot square footage and just to go above
and beyond R-4, even, we have said 1,500 square foot minimum home. In all reality,
like I was telling Planning Commission, what we are seeing in the market out here in
south Meridian, in Bear Creek and Tuscany, is most of the homes are over 2,000
square feet. That's really, what the market is generating. I feel hesitant to set it at that
level, but we -- we did set it at 1,500, we agreed to it, and the Planning Commission
thought that was a good gesture toward leaning away from the -- you know, trying to
squeeze in 1,100 square foot homes into the R-8, which was never out intent. Maybe
just to kind of reiterate some things. We did revise the site plan to move the entrance
on Victory Road 110 feet to the east. It's a really tough sight distance there coming off
the hill and -- I don't know if any of you have driven it, but it really drops off at
Observation Point. We originally had it up on the hill for that reason, but it is better 100
feet over and so we moved it to where you can see down the hill and up the hill at the
same time, so there is not any possibility of not seeing cars coming the other way. We
did extend a stub street to the east. One of the homeowners -- or the property owners
to the east asked if we could do that and we also had an issue of block length, so we
did it. It worked. We redesigned everything and we kept -- we kept the same number
of lots without going against what we agreed to as far as the dimensional standards
when we redid it. We are proposing a detached sidewalk. Those street trees will go in
before the first house is built, like we have done in some parts of Bear Creek and all of
Tuscany. That's how we are doing it. It's really a nice street appeal right from the get
go and we -- it costs a little more up front, but it's really kind of a look we are trying to
maintain and portray out in this area. You know, I really think this is a good subdivision
it's a good location. We meet the master plan. The utilities are all here. We are
cleaning up the site. It's been kind of weeds for a long time and we know there is some
opposition to the R-8, but I think the Development Agreement would allay some of
those fears that some people might have. You know, if there are any other questions --
I might have missed a couple from Brad, but I'll stand for any that you may have.
Bird: Madam President?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 45 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Matt, you say the minimum on the lots are 8,000?
Schultz: Yes, sir.
Bird: How do you get 52 8,000 lots in a 648,000 square foot 17 acres?
Schultz: I don't have my computer --
Bird: I did it by hand, too, here. I hope I'm right, but --
Schultz: Councilman Bird, I don't have my HP calculator and I can't work that math in
my head either, but I have done the layout and it does work. All the square footages
are there, all the dimensions are there, and it all works out that we do have an 8,000
square foot minimum. A lot of them are over that on the west side of Observation Point.
We do meet the five percent open space, in deleting the entrance, we created some
more up north at the drainage landscaping, and the sewer line is in a common lot that
wasn't in the original plat. We still meet the five percent. We know that's a rule. It's a
rule we always have to play by and we meet that and usually exceed it. In this case, we
don't have a lot of natural features to really accomplish that in a lot of places, but we are
making the five percent open space.
De Weerd: What are your open space amenities?
Schultz: As far as the amenities, we are not planning a PUD, so we are not proposing
any like tot lots or basketball hoops or things like that. What we do have is a segment
of pathway along the Ten Mile Drain. To correct staff, we are proposing only to give the
easements right now to you. If the city ever wants to come through and build this, they
could. They would have one of the connecting pieces and I would applaud the city for
pursuing these sections and pieces when you can get them. Maybe you will be able to
get through Meridian Greens someday and connect everything. We do have an area
for a pathway. If a pathway would be required of us, we would do it, we just don't think
at this time it's warranted, because it does go nowhere at this stage, but we will leave
20 feet from the top of bank to the back of the lot, plenty of room to put a pathway. In
the meantime, it will be an HOA maintained lot and we will keep -- you know, we will
keep the weeds down and maybe plant some natural grasses and things like that, but
as you're aware, these ditch banks with the ditch company, the license agreements, and
things like that, get kind of complicated sometimes. I'm not sure the city has worked
through a master agreement with the irrigation district yet, but when that day does
come, the easement will be there and the city could build it. If you want us to build it
now, we could do that, too. We are suggesting that it probably shouldn't be required,
but we could do that as well.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 46 of 63
Nary: Mr. Schultz, approximately how far is it from this back end of the subdivision to
Victory Road. Half a mile?
Schultz: Mr. Nary, I believe -- I believe it's probably a little over a quarter mile. I think
Observation Point is a 40-acre square -- I believe. Yes. I just heard it's 1,746, so it's
over a quarter mile by a few hundred feet.
Nary: And it appears most of your green space is this back corner here?
Schultz: It is -- Mr. Nary, it is the back corner along the path. We do have a -- like Mr.
Hawkins-Clark said, we do have an extra wide buffer along Victory Road and our street
trees, we -- I consider that landscaping right off the bat. In any case, even if you did
consider that landscaping, we are providing it along Victory Road as well.
Nary: Those little circles that are in the roadway here, is there some -- is there road
barrier or something? Because this looks like a pretty straight road, so is there
something there, the circles on the plat and I didn't know what --
Schultz: On the plat.
Nary: Maybe it's just a manhole. I don't --
Schultz: What is there is an existing 15-inch sewer line that was put in in conjunction
with the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. Once, again, even more so limited our layout, in
addition to -- just the shape of the parcel was limiting, but the sewer line being there did
limit where we put the road as well.
Nary: That rear -- that rear green space looks to me like drainage. It's got topography
in it it's got all the lines in it for -- basically a drainage lot. You have got no amenity to it
and it's a drainage lot. I mean I guess I don't see how that's really an enhancement for
the people that live in the front.
Schultz: Mr. Nary, if I could, it is a very shallow drainage area. In any case, it's -- the
groundwater is really deep there, it will be dry, it will be a green open space that people
could walk their -- you know, walk their pets down along the drain through there and
enjoy the trees and the open space that's there. These lots aren't small, you know, they
are slightly smaller than a standard R-4, but they are big lots and people will have the
enjoyment of an extra -- you know, a bigger backyard, a deeper backyard that we are
proposing. The vast majority of our lots are over the 100 foot deep minimum, so they
are deeper lots and we are suggesting that people would enjoy their own lots. Right
down the road where we are doing denser properties, PUD's, we are providing those
amenities. That's just tot lots. In this one case, we are not. That's not to say that we
might not just go throw it in there, because it works for marketing as well, you know, to
put in a tot lot. We are not proposing that as a requirement of the plat. Sometimes we
do them because we want to enhance it, but we don't think a straight R-8 would require
that amenity back in the corner there where there is nice -- there is really big trees
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 47 of 63
along that drainage. It's a really nice natural area back there that I think people are
going to enjoy for it's natural features.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Schultz, how do these lot sizes and house sizes compare to the houses on
the opposite side here that are in Observation Point and Meridian Greens?
Schultz: Lot sizes, some of them are the same size and some of them are smaller. I
can't speak to all the house sizes, because a lot of the lots in Observation Point are
vacant. They are very highly priced lots. They are probably equivalent to our Highland
lots in Bear Creek, they are 75,000 and up. I would assume that their houses will be at
least 2,500 square foot, 3,500 square foot, very large houses with large lots, if they can
find somebody to buy them. We propose ours to be nice lots. We are not going down.
The standard we are proposing, lots probably priced in the 50,000, 60,000 range, with
the homes probably about 200,000 to 350. That's really, what we are shooting for. We
don't think it's a bad neighborhood, we think it's a very good compliment to the -- it's not
exactly like Observation Point, but I'm not sure I could afford to do it exactly like
Observation Point and selling one lot every six months. We are proposing something
that will just be nice. There is a strong market for that now that we are experiencing in
our subdivisions we are doing in Bear Creek and in Tuscany of this exact same size lot
and this exact same size product that we are going to establish by our CC&R's and
minimum house size, which I think will be about 1,500 square feet. In fact, to make it
easy for everybody. What we are proposing is maybe just a blanket 2,000 square foot
minimum house in here, single, two story, whatever, bonus room -- you know, there was
a big argument at P&C about what about a bonus, single level, two story, it was quite --
you know, comical. Just to make things easy, what we are proposing maybe to step up
to a 2,000 square minimum home -- which is a nice house, you know, in Meridian, and
single level two story, whatever, to make it easy for staff to review and -- when these
things come through the building department and everything. Buildable space. That
would be enforced through the Development Agreement.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Okay. You're going -- you're saying a minimum of 2,000 square foot?
Schultz: Instead of a 1,500, 1,800.
De Weerd: What is your minimum lot? I know it's 76 for width, but what's the depth?
Schultz: It's an 8,000 square foot lot, so I think it's like in the 76, it's 106 or 108 feet
deep, it works out to an 8,000 square foot minimum, and you see those along that east
property line.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 48 of 63
Bird: Okay. That is an R-4; right? Why are we asking for an R-8?
Schultz: That's a good question. The same question came up at P&Z and what we are
asking for is a 76-foot wide lot width in the front, because the R-4 requires an 80-foot
wide lot. It's suggested that maybe you do a variance instead of that, but staff wasn't
comfortable with that. We are just asking for a slight difference from an R-4, we are
going to an R-8 just for that. Everything else is meeting the R-4 standard.
Bird: The thing -- the thing that -- oh, I'm sorry. Madam President.
De Weerd: That's all right.
Bird: The thing that I'm scared of is on an R-8 is if you resell the property -- and that's
the popular thing to do, don't blame the developer at all. Whoever buys it, it's zoned R-
8, comes in, and takes it over, we are going to get R-8’s, and, you know, it can happen
within corporations. You know as well as I do, Matt. I don't feel comfortable because of
having Meridian Greens and Observation Point backing up to you, who are R-4's -- the
fact we had Observation Point here asking part of theirs to be down to a smaller house.
We continued that on, so that is -- that's my reasoning behind -- I'd like to see you guys
-- if you have got the lot and it's only four foot difference for the width, we can do a
variance in that, you can get the depth, but I'd like to see it the R-4 zone. That's my
personal opinion.
Schultz: If I may, Mr. Bird, the whole reason we went ahead and went along with the
Development Agreement would be to maybe -- would be to definitely prevent exactly
what you're saying could happen from happening. This -- the Development Agreement
runs with the land in each transaction that happens. We would be -- we would be to the
76, would be to the 8,000 square foot, we would be to the 2,000 square foot minimum
house size that somebody couldn't back with an R-8 and say, hey, I want 65 foot
minimums, I want four or five to the acre, I want 1,100 square foot homes. That could
not happen with this Development Agreement and that's why we are proposing this way
of doing that. I hope that would -- that would allay some of those fears that -- and
concerns that you have.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think Mr. Schultz is right. I mean if we are comfortable with the sizes and such,
the development is probably better, because, again, the variance -- a variance for this is
no different than any other variance. There is nothing about this property that's unique
or special or anything else that it couldn't be done that way, so a variance I think is
probably not really going to get us there legally any differently than a Development
Agreement, because I think you're right, Mr. Bird. I think that all of these considerations
that Mr. Schultz is willing to give, at least the numbers seem to match up on the plat,
that it is -- although it is an R-8. The concern I have, though, I guess is a little different
that Mr. Bird, but the same. You know, the difference is you might have a Development
Agreement. That's still an R-8 and the next time someone wants to develop there, we
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 49 of 63
have created a transition zone. Now all those other properties, like the one that the
stub street goes to, are going to say, well, we want to be an R-8 now, we want to have
1,100 square foot houses here. Now it becomes this little island of these very small
homes that are not compatible with everyone else, but we are stuck with the R-8.
That's what concerns me a little bit. It's not what you're willing to agree to, but what we
are going to be stuck with for the rest of the development. I guess maybe if you could
tell us a little bit from your perspective as to what impact it would be on your application
to have to conform to the R-8 requirement -- obviously, you may lose a lot or two to do
that and so I guess we need to hear a little of that if you could.
Schultz: Thank you, Councilman Nary. You hit it right on the head and that was
brought up at P&Z as well, that, yes, we do create a transitional zoning that somebody
else could come in to the east and apply for an R-8 zone. I would argue that that could
happen even if we had an R-4 zone, that could still -- somebody could come in with an
R-8 and propose a transition down from an R-4. The impact to this layout is probably a
couple lots, like you said. You know, it's probably exactly a couple lots. I haven't ran
through the scenario of it, but just off the top of my head, knowing dimensions and I did
the original layout, what we tried to do was model this after a subdivision right down the
road that we did in Bear Creek No. 6, which is almost identical. We are seeing a really
strong market for this and it's a little bit extra deep lot, a little bit narrow width, but it still
supports a really good house on it and I -- with the Development Agreement, we are
hoping to get a good subdivision down in here that meets everybody's concerns. I
know you have some others, but I think you still have power -- obviously, when
somebody else tries to come in and annex to -- to evaluate it for its merits at that time
and if has merits in ten years or 15 years or 20 years, maybe an R-8 makes great
sense in 20 years. I don't know how the demographics and the economy and everything
is going to change with the cost of land and everything. It may be -- there is a lot of
really dense R-8's coming across you guy's plates that I see. There is one coming in
about a month right down the road that's way dense than this. I think we are on the
very extreme -- you know, we are still in the low density of 2.97 to the acre; we are still
down in that low density category for an R-8. I just -- I think what -- instead of doing the
variance, which is hard to back up and defend, we are doing something that makes
sense with a Development Agreement and adding some other things in there, like the
minimum house that you wouldn't get with a straight R-4, you would get a 1,500 square
foot minimum with a straight R-4. You would get -- you know, just an R-4, even, is
1,500 square foot minimum. What we are doing is a step up even from that to -- as an
extra added -- I guess concession to allow you to approve this as we have prepared it
and as we have submitted it.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you.
Schultz: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony? Is the testimony you provide tonight
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Chase: Yes, it is.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 50 of 63
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and addresses.
Chase: My name is Larry Chase. I live at 78 -- just moved here four years ago. I
forgot it. 756 East Martinique in Meridian Greens. I'm not the Larry Chase you hear on
the radio. Who I am, Meridian Greens is a -- as most of you are aware, is a subdivision
of 340 homes immediately north of this. I'm the president of the board of the
homeowners association. Help me understand one thing real quick. We sent a letter --
and do -- do you have that letter? There was a letter sent to the City Council on
October 21st
from our board through our property management association. I'm just
wondering if I should resubmit it.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg? I'd have to flip through all my -- I'm sure Mr. Berg has give it to
us, but I don't see it.
Chase: Well, let me just reiterate real quick.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Chase: Basically, the board -- the homeowners association of Meridian Greens found
out about this subdivision after the Planning and Zoning and we had a board meeting
and concluded that we prefer the R-4, as opposed to the R-8. We wrote a letter, had
our property manager send it to the City Council, and we were concerned about the R-4
versus the R-8, because as we look at the neighborhood surrounding it, as an example
I will talk about Meridian Greens. My house is an average house in Meridian Greens. It
is 2,800 square feet. It sits on 17,000 square feet. This is an average house in
Meridian Greens. Observation Point -- when that was put in place, Meridian Greens got
involved a little bit in order to make sure that that came up to that standard. What we
see is 340 homes that are half million-dollar homes, a third of a million to three-fourths
of a million dollar homes. Observation Point is coming close to that. The homes on
Kachina Drive, which is Mesa Street, are real nice homes, big homes, and we would
like to see this developed, we think this is probably a good development, but we'd like to
see that happen. We would just like to see it be done in such a manner that, in fact, if
we are planning on -- to use a sport analogy here. If we are all playing football, we are
all playing on the football field and not one of us playing on a tennis court and we see
kind of that happening here, that, in fact, maybe somebody is working on a different
kind of scale than we are. Questions? I think that's all I have to say. Questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Chase, I guess just one thing I would like you to consider -- and I
understand your concern. One thing that the applicant did say is by requesting the R-8,
they are still maintaining the density of the R-4, but by requesting the R-8, they are
agreeing to a Development Agreement that will establish the minimum house sizes. If
they go for the R-4, they won't have to have a Development Agreement and they won't
have to agree to maintain a minimum house size and I guess what he was explaining to
us, the advantage of going to the R-8 is to have that Development Agreement and to
have certain assurances built within that agreement. Now, our concern, on the other
side, would mirror yours, is would this be seen as a transitional area, you know, to
encourage more R-8's as some of that vacant land develops and certainly we would
share that concern. I think just wanted to make you aware that those are some of the
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 51 of 63
things that the applicant had talked about would be advantages to doing the R-8 and
they are still maintaining less than an R-4 density.
Chase: Are you saying that if -- when you ask for R-8, you have to have a
Development Agreement? Can you not also say when you ask for R-4 you have to
have a Development Agreement?
De Weerd: I couldn't answer that. I guess you could ask for it. You could.
Chase: Because what I see happening is coming and they are saying we want an R-8
and so to make that happen we will do this other thing. They could also come to you
and say we want an R-4, to make that happen we will do these things, we will have
2,000-foot minimums and that kind of thing, so I don't buy that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Chase: Anything else?
De Weerd: No. Thank you. Okay. Further testimony? Is the testimony you provide
tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Sackett: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sackett: My concern --
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address.
Sackett: Gary Sackett, 2008 South Peppercorn in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you, Gary.
Sackett: Is similar to the president of Meridian Greens, as you look at this map -- and I
may be asking a question, the yellow that loops all the way around that, is, indeed, all
R-4; is that correct? Then, again, yeah, we are sandwiching an R-8 inside there. I just
want to backtrack to what we submitted -- when Observation Point submitted their plat,
they were R-4, their smallest lot was 11,200 square foot lot and it came back from the
previous president of -- in the homeowners association of Meridian Greens that they
wanted to see those a little larger. We, indeed, removed seven lots from the
subdivision, then, our smallest lot was 12,648 and many others along further towards
the road got even larger, so we did that, that was seven lots removing -- I mean at 60,
70,000 dollars a lot. That's a half a million dollars of revenue that was pulled out of
there to make those lots larger, yet I think it works for the subdivision and I think
Meridian Greens has been happy with what -- how Observation Point values have been
there. We -- it just appears to me, whether it's R-4 or R-8, whatever the R is, if there
are 2,000 square foot homes, it's still a quantum leap from what we were asked to do
from Meridian Greens. We are only asking for the similar consideration be made to us,
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 52 of 63
who is also having another subdivision butt right up against us and, golly, I can't
imagine that Meridian Greens would have been happy with us to put, you know, some
larger lots just along their border there. Then, done a whole bunch of small lots after
the coming out. I would imagine they would -- and we did, we even made them larger
as they went to some of those premium view lots. I just feel that this subdivision is
counterproductive to being compatible with Meridian Greens, with Observation Point,
and also, you know, there was a comment that we sold one lot every six months, you
know, golly, we have 20 some lots sold and we have had plats since August of 2002.
We have -- we do sell lots, but when you're selling lots that predicate 300,000 and
higher homes on them, they take a longer time to do and our developer is patient to see
that happen, isn't lowering prices of lots to try and get them to move, he's being patient.
I think that's a wonderful commitment for a developer to show to have -- bring higher
values to the area and we don't need a strike against us in having a smaller subdivision
that can put in dramatically smaller homes right next to us. It's just another little strike
against us. The economy already has a tough time selling, you know, higher priced lots
and three, four thousand square foot homes. We would -- as the homeowners of
Observation Point and the developer, are concerned with that size of subdivision going
on, whether it's R-8 or R-4, that's still very concerning to us. Thank you.
De Weerd: Questions?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Sackett, on Observation Point, that is an R-4; right?
Sackett: That's correct.
Bird: We do have a Development Agreement with restrictions; am I not right?
Sackett: I believe so. I'm not real knowledgeable about the Development Agreement
issues.
Bird: We do have a Development Agreement with some restrictions on it, so, you know,
whether it's an R-4 or R-8, that argument don't go. You get your Development
Agreements and you can have the 2,000 square foot house and everything on it. Okay.
Thank you.
Sackett: One last thing to mention. We removed seven lots from the subdivision. If he
goes to R-4, he said he lost two lots -- I don't know why you couldn't do that. It's not
lose four to six lots and make them larger and more compatible. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Howard: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 53 of 63
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Howard: Stephanie Howard, 12909 West Broadleaf, and we are building a home in
Observation Point right now, so we -- that address is 2164 South Daybreak, which is
bordering the subdivision in question, Glacier Springs. It's the second one from the --
the second one from the bottom and I'm really concerned -- I'd like to see it an R-4 to
match the subdivision, because we are building -- ours is a third of an acre. I think it's
about 17,000 square feet, so we will probably see them from where we are in our house
and I'm really concerned that we have the same quality homes to keep the value of our
home what it's going to be when it's built. It's currently under construction. I would like
it to be officially an R-4 and with the building requirements that -- similar to what
Observation Point and Meridian Green has, in order to keep the value of our subdivision
house the same as what we are going to be paying for it. That's all.
De Weerd: Well, thank you. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Is the testimony
you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
J. Berg: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you, Please state your name and address.
J. Berg: John Berg, 778 East Trinidad Drive. I have -- I'm in the house that butts right
up against the area, which is the green space. My concern is two fold. I understand
and I applaud the developer's efforts to make the minimum home size 2,000 square feet
and I appreciate that, up from the 1,500 at the P&Z. I understand that the R-8, plus
2,000 square feet more than exceeds the R-4. My concern is the residents -- most of
these lots right across here are all 13,000 square feet, which are the back ones of
Meridian Greens. It seems like an awful drastic change for the 8,000 square foot lots
that would go in here. I understand that these -- that that would appear along here are
a little bit larger size, but, still, in relation they are still considerably smaller lots and I'm
not sure that they compliment the surrounding subdivision. I guess the question I had
for the Council is in the Development Agreement, the green space that we talked about
here, I guess my concern, if we had -- go to the other -- the other one that shows -- yes.
We have an awfully narrow opening that comes into this property. I think these kind of
cut back a little bit and I guess my concern is what -- in the Development Agreement,
what restrictions, what can we hold the developer to in regards to that green space.
This is my home right here I'm going to be looking at it. It if becomes a mosquito
infested wasteland, I'm going to be back here talking to you. This is going to be
controlled by a 52-member homeowners association, which, you know, I don't know that
they will be as lucky as having Mr. Chase with a 300-member homeowners association
to look out for them. A 52-member homeowners association sometimes does have
some problems in getting action done. I guess my question is is what can be placed on
this or is this something that we just get to wait and see?
De Weerd: Good question. We will ask the developer to answer it for you.
J. Berg: Okay. I appreciate that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 54 of 63
De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Berg? Really? Come on.
J. Berg: I know you all know where my house is, because I got all kinds of flyers on my
doorstep, so --
Nary: They didn't want them to come back and talk to us, so that's --
Bird: So, we got to find out on that.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Come on forward.
Come on forward. You will still have to be sworn in and state your name and address.
Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Shay: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Shay: John Shay at 3155 South Mesa Way. We live right on the corner where they are
coming in down there on those five acres.
De Weerd: Okay.
Shay: I'm curious here, because they were talking about 52 lots, buildable lots, but I'm
looking at the plot here and there is only 35.
De Weerd: Okay. We will ask the question of the developer -- or the applicant when he
comes up. Hey, Steve, you can't do that. Do you have more questions? We can ask
you to ask the questions and, then, ask the applicant to --
Shay: Okay. I'm just curious about that, because if they are, you know, building a
certain size home on there and you got 52 buildable lots and I'm looking at 35 on here,
you know, I'm all for the subdivision if it goes in and it's all, you know, nice.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Shay: That's just a question I got is all.
Nary: There is -- I mean there is lots that go to 15 in one phase section here, there is
25 lots in the other section.
De Weerd: So, they show them in phases.
Shay: Okay. There are 52 all total out of the thing. Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 55 of 63
De Weerd: Do you have some more questions?
Shay: No, not really.
De Weerd: Okay.
Shay: I was just looking at the lot size, because I know back in there that's been
nothing but a mess back there for the last five years. I mean the weeds and the trash
and everything back there is terrible. It will be nice to have a subdivision in there, but I'd
like to have it a nice one.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Okay. Does the applicant want
to respond?
Schultz: Yes. Thank you. Matt Schultz again. I heard a lot of comments about small
lots, noncompatible, even if we were an R-4 it would be noncompatible. Looking at my
plat, if I removed a lot from the east side, which is where all my neighbors are favorable
to me, I hit the R-4. I still wouldn't appease, even with 15,000 -- let's see, there is
12,700, 13,000, 15,000, 18,000 -- I have 14,000, 10,000 lots adjacent to Observation
Point. These people aren't happy. I don't know what else I can do, besides not submit
a plat or -- this size of property, for the price of the land, and the cost of improvements
and everything else, and just the dimensional limitations to it. I can make a little wider
lot, but I just don't think I could -- as a developer I can't justify proposing that. We have
a very strong market for this subdivision as submitted and it's going to be a nice
subdivision, every bit as good as Observation Point. The quality of people and the
families moving in there will be every bit as good as the quality of the families moving
into Observation Point. They may only have 300,000-dollar homes, instead of 750,000-
dollar homes, but I don't see that's a big problem. It's a problem to them and I'm not
sure why I'm getting all this grief, but we are. I think it's just because they got picked on
by Meridian Greens and now they are returning the favor and I just, you know -- and
that's the impression I got from day one in the neighborhood meeting and what we are
proposing is a nice subdivision, with nice size lots, with nice landscaping, the
landscaping in the back that, let's see, Mr. -- I believe it's Hazeltine -- mosquito infested
wasteland, that's not our intent and ACHD, the City of Meridian, would never -- I
wouldn't allow that to happen. The HOA wouldn't allow that to happen. The drainage,
like I said, it will be dry, unless it rains really hard, it would fill up, and it would drain out
within 24 hours. That's requirements of ACHD. If it didn't, we have to fix it. It will have
nice landscaping turf, trees, shrubs it will be a nice area that's really a beautiful buffer
for that gentleman's backyard. I mean I wish I could so lucky with my backyard. I really
don't know how to rebut their argument that we have small lots and we are
incompatible. I think we are really compatible and we have a quality project, no matter
what I -- I really can't do anything to appease them tonight, even if I went to an R-4 and
lost a lot or two, it would be on the other side from them and I have nice big lots up
adjacent to them. I just can't throw six, seven, eight, ten lots way just because. That's
all I have.
Bird: Madam President?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 56 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Matt, you -- I don't understand, you're going to lose two lots if you go to R-4 with
the stipulations and the Development Agreement, of which we can have stipulations the
same as we would with an R-8 or anything else. I don't know what the hang up is on R-
8 zones. If you got a 2,000 minimum on the house and you're going to have 50, 60,000
dollar lots -- and let me tell you, I realize you guys probably paid a lot more for this
property than Fuller did or Cavin did for their property, because they bought it a long
time ago. Anyway, I don't see -- I don't see what your hang up is on not having an R-4 if
you are going to go with 2,000 square foot homes -- when you say your lot's going to be
50, 60,000 dollars, which I understand is cheaper, you're looking at 250, 300,000 dollar
houses there. I'm sure there is some more expensive in Meridian Greens, but there is a
whole lot of them within Meridian Greens that probably aren't that high. I just -- I have a
real problem why your hang up is on R-8. I just can't believe that there isn't something -
- I don't know. Why not go R-4. A Development Agreement and R-4, we can put the
same stipulations in. That's all.
Schultz: Madam President and Councilman Bird, I'm here to ask you for approval
tonight and I will -- we will go to an R-4, we will hold an 80 foot minimum, we will hold
the Development Agreement to a 2,000 square foot minimum house. If you will
approve this thing tonight, that's -- we want to move forward and get this -- get this thing
done and looking at it -- we will probably lose -- we will probably lose a nice big fat lot
down there in the corner or something, but, you know, that's what we got to do. I'd like
you to approve it as such and what you're left with is the same subdivision and we just
made a gesture to give that lot away, which is my -- it's a big chunk of change. I mean
it's a big salary -- it's somebody's good size salary there for a year, so, you know, it
wasn't small, that one lot was not small, so just -- you know.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Matt -- and I agree with you Matt, it is taking out -- and I know you guys -- like I
said, you paid a lot more money for this property than what Fuller and Cavin’s paid for
theirs. Still, we got to look out for what can be developed, as Mr. Nary said, around
that, too, and what we have got there existing. I think this makes Observation Point and
Meridian Greens happy. I don't think they are asking for the 13 or 14 thousand square
foot lots. The 2,000 square foot homes is compatible. I -- and if you're going to do that,
let's go R-4, because if we zone you R-8 with a Development Agreement and don't
have a bunch of stuff in there, it could turn us upside down and I'm willing pass it tonight
if we go R-4 with the stipulations.
Schultz: I'm ready to go home myself.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 57 of 63
Nary: And I really appreciate that, Mr. Schultz, in trying to be accommodating to the
concerns and I guess I'm not -- I'm not saying I would vote against -- I'm going to vote
against this for this reason, but you folks do build very nice subdivisions, you do make
them into very nice additions to the community. I would encourage you very strongly on
that open space to really look at what enhancement that's going to be. My concerns --
and think Mr. Berg raised that, that we haven't discussed before, but you, basically,
have a dead end street that is the access to this green space. There is basically -- the
people that live here either have to walk all the way down here or they don't use it.
There is no place to park. There are restrictions on parking on the street per the fire
department's requirement, so the access and usability of this is pretty limited. If you
don't make it attractive, you don't -- and I know you have seen me here a lot and I don't
know always tell people to put in a tot lot or a basketball court. I tell them to put in
some picnic benches, some shade and some trees and things to make it an attractive,
usable facility, so -- I mean I think that's really what I would envision is something more
along that line. I agree with you, I mean I don't think a tot lot or a basketball court
belongs in every one of these things. I don't think it will be very usable or used without
it having some amenity like trees and picnic benches or a gazebo or something that is
more usable for people to invite them to that rear section. Yes, I'm not saying we
wouldn't approve it without that, but I really would invite you to folks to look at that in
making it much more of a usable space. I agree with part of what you said, I mean for
the property owners on that side, the fact that there isn't a two story house behind them
is a plus, but I think to make it more inviting, it's probably a better way to go.
Schultz: Councilman Nary, I appreciate the comments and we do submit a landscape
plan with the Final Plat. We will look at that area closely when we do our final
landscape plan and we will do a good job.
De Weerd: I guess I have some more concerns on the open space. I guess I would
ask a question of staff as well on this pathway. It will be a pathway that goes nowhere.
I think the irrigation -- or the waterway, as you look into Meridian Greens, is fairly well
developed into landscape and it's not really practical to consider that it's going to be a
pathway at any point and so -- and I guess I'll get on my soap box on pathways. We
need a master plan and we need to really see where these are going to be feasible as a
requirement. And so if this one will not be feasible, it's going to turn into -- well,
hopefully these residents would do what the Meridian Green residents have done and
make it a nice amenity. If we make it a common lot and pathway, it's just going to be an
eyesore. Is it really something that we want a pathway on and even if we want one on,
is it something that we will ever get?
Hawkins-Clark: I agree. I really would have to defer to the Parks Department, for the
most part, and I know that sounds somewhat escapist, but, you know, these pathways -
- our job in the Planning and Zoning Department is to point out what the
Comprehensive plan calls for. In the pre-application meetings we point out to the
developers this is what it calls for and as far as our level, you're going to be much better
off designating that on your plat. I don't think that the -- that it's out of the question that
heading southeast at some point you could connect and continue through Tuscany.
They are providing a pathway through there and would it end at this open space lot of --
it probably will. I agree. I don't think there has been any discussions with Meridian
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 58 of 63
Greens homeowners association -- we have the president here tonight and maybe it's
just better to get him on the record to say they -- they absolutely refuse to work with the
city to provide a pathway through there. If that's the case, maybe that's the answer to
the question, but --
De Weerd: Well, I guess I would -- I guess I would like to see that -- you know, I don't
think we can pass this tonight without a plat, you know, without us being able to see
what it's going to be and maybe that pathway can also be a part of some of the
realignment. I just don't see the viability of a pathway, just like Councilman Nary points
out, having that piece of open space at the back corner in drainage lot shows a lot of
usability, unless tell us what, really, the vision for that open space is going to be, so --
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The only argument I have got to that is we just passed on this same creek up at
Mitchner's property on Overland and Meridian Road, we made them put in a pathway
on their side of the -- on their side of the ditch. It's on the same ditch and it doesn’t -- it
goes from Overland Road to Calderwood -- I don't think it even completely goes to
Calderwood. Hopefully, we had a master plan that was supposed to connect all these
and whether -- I don't know whether we can Meridian Greens to allows us to go through
or not. I doubt if they will, but -- and I certainly wouldn't blame them, but I think it's
something we need to decide if they are going to be dead ends, we treat them all the
same. We either do it or we don't. We -- it's been a policy of ours to -- even if they
have been a quarter mile dead end, we have made them put in pathways. We got
another one -- we just had a pathway put in over there on the corner of Victory and
Locust Grove and its dead end. It might run into this one of these days, but it's going to
be awhile before it does, so --
Nary: The other one is through the other property. Mr. Schultz.
Bird: Yes. That's right.
Schultz: We don't have a problem building the pathway for the section, for that six,
seven hundred feet, and putting a dead end sign or whatever, no trespassing, and in
twenty -- you never know, you know, in ten, twenty, thirty years you can find a way to
connect them all. You just never know. It's smart to get them up front and I think you
acquire them when you can and you just never know what's going to happen, maybe
Meridian Greens will say, yes, we'd love a pathway and we have got the money to go in
and buy one. I don't know. You know, who knows.
De Weerd: Well, you have restrictions on your back property lines of four-foot fences.
It does pose a problem for our police department that will not be visible from any road to
look in at. They'd have to get into that cul-de-sac, walk into your drainage field and look
down it to see if there is anything going on back there and that's -- I think we are setting
ourselves up to create some problem areas and they are not problem areas we really
need to create.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 59 of 63
Schultz: Maybe the compromise is that we -- like we suggested, we grant the
easement for a pathway with our plat to you that's an easement. The lots won't be
there. If the future we do solve this problem, we do have a -- we do get it all
interconnected, you will have an interconnected series of easements that you could
build a pathway and at that time it would be solved in a more comprehensive fashion
and that would be the compromise that we grant the easement at least.
De Weerd: Well, maybe at least it warrants some further discussion from the parks
department as you revise your plat. You can talk to them, but I mean we are going to
count that as open space it might not be usable open space ever and so why would we
want to --
Schultz: We are not counting it now. We are not counting it now.
De Weerd: Oh, you're not?
Schultz: No, we are not.
De Weerd: Okay.
Schultz: That's totally outside our open space count, so we are not counting that
pathway easement area, which we do in all of our subdivisions, but -- like I say, I think
you can approve this tonight with us subtracting one lot to meet the R-4 standards. I
think you can do that without having us resubmit. It's a very simple thing to do. I would
hope you could pass it tonight with that condition, that you annex it as an R-4 zone and
that we have a Development Agreement, 2,000 square foot minimum homes and
submit a revised Preliminary Plat within so many days.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd ask the rest of the Council -- I see no problem in passing the annexation and
zoning. I do with the Preliminary Plat until Matt or Steve, whichever one of you is going
to get us back a -- you know, as soon as we could get it back it would just be a formality.
I think we need to continue that Public Hearing just with the -- just with the notification
that we just see the Preliminary Plat redrawn, but the annexation and zoning we can
pass tonight.
Schultz: And we can get that plat to you with -- what's today. By the end of the week. I
mean it's not that big of deal.
Bird: Okay. Without seeing the Preliminary Plat, it's pretty hard to pass that but we can
pass the annexation and zoning.
Nary: Madam President?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 60 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I agree with Council Member Bird. If they are able to get that plat -- is next week
too soon for you folks to have time to review it? I mean if you don't get it until Friday -- it
may not be very comprehensive, but I mean I don't want to put you folks -- you folks
have lots to do. It is just that piece that we are talking about, the Preliminary Plat
application, not the annexation and zoning. Would that be better on the 25th
, Mr.
Hawkins-Clark?
Hawkins-Clark: The 25th
. The -- so, yes, if we received it by -- by Monday that would
give us four or five days, so -- yes. I think that would work.
Nary: That would be fair -- I think fairer to the staff, but I think the annexation and
zoning, as Mr. Bird said, I think we can go forward with. That would give Mr. Arnold
time to figure out where the park benches are going to go and maybe the shelter in the
back.
Bird: Gazebo.
Nary: And gazebo.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With that I would move that we close Public Hearing AZ 03-024, the request for
annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Glacier
Springs Subdivision.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close Item 11, AZ 03-024. All
those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we pass or approve AZ 03-024, request for annexation and
zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Glacier Springs
Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Incorporated. North of east Victory Road and
east of South Meridian Road. That the Development Agreement includes a minimum of
2,000 square foot homes, excluding the garage and 80 square foot -- or 80 foot
frontage is automatic in -- and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 61 of 63
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and incorporate applicant, staff, and planning
and zoning recommendations.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-024, with all staff
comments, noting that it's RUT to R-4 zones, and to add into it a Development
Agreement, minimum 2,000 square foot house size. Is there any discussion, other than
what I have -- we normally don't pass one without the other and I guess I'm just not
comfortable to do that.
Bird: If we got it annexed and zoned, which is completely different, then, we can -- we
need to see a Preliminary Plat.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I mean if there is a concern, we won't have the ordinance back for at least two
weeks, so we should be able to see the Preliminary Plat before we approve the
ordinance. We could also hold the ordinance at that juncture, if the Preliminary Plat
isn't here. We still can maybe, hopefully, satisfy your concerns in case there isn't -- that
isn't completed. We can do it that way. The Development Agreement comes later
anyway.
Bird: Yes. That comes later.
De Weerd: Now can -- the Development Agreement comes before the ordinance?
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: So, at that point can -- if something is not on there, we can always make
sure --
Bird: You bet we can.
Nary: Yes.
Bird: We don't have to pass it we can pull it.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion?
Nary: I won't say what I was going to say.
De Weerd: Oh, now you have us wondering. Okay. Question called?
Bird: Yes, I do.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 62 of 63
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded and the motion is to approve AZ 03-
24, request annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier
Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc., with all staff comments, to note a
minimum house size of 2,000 square feet and a Development Agreement. Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, naye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Berg: It passes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue Public Hearing PP 03-028, the request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots -- well, that's going to be down to 50
building lots. Fifty-one. Fifty-one and eight other lots on 17.5 acres until November
25th, 2003, to see the -- and the only reason for the Public Hearing is to see the new
Preliminary Plat and that's it.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to continue PP 03-028 to November 25,
2003, to see the amended Preliminary Plat on Glacier Springs Subdivision. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Matt, I want to thank you guys for the thing you did, the homeowners association,
and all you guys. This, for a controversial thing, went really really good and I, as one
Councilman, certainly appreciate it. Thank you for being cooperative with us.
De Weerd: Okay. Staff, do you have anything? Anything further? No? You know,
Brad, if you can pass onto Anna, again, the need for a pathway plan, it would sure be
nice.
Hawkins-Clark: I will certainly do that.
De Weerd: I know I underscored that earlier today, but, you know, I think every --
almost every meeting we have something come up on a pathway and it would sure be
nice to have a good solid plan, so we are all on the same page on these.
Hawkins-Clark: I will do that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 63 of 63
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, anything further?
Nary: Move to adjourn.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: It's 10:20.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK